rr/2007/3515/p - file · web viewrr/2007/3515/p - rother

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee - Planning

Date - 17 July 2008

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and NotesConditions, reasons for refusal and notes are primarily presented in coded number form within the report. The codes are set out in full in the Council’s Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and Decisions Notice Notes Document.

Background PapersThese are planning applications, forms and plans as presented in the Agenda. Correspondence between the applicant, agents, consultees and other representatives in respect of the application. Previous planning applications and correspondence where relevant, reports to Committee, decision notices and appeal decisions which are specifically referred to in the reports. Planning applications can be viewed on the planning website www.planning.rother.gov.uk.

Planning Committee ReportsIf you are viewing the electronic copy of the Planning Applications report to Planning Committee then you can access individual reported applications by clicking on the link (View application/correspondence) at the end of each report.

ConsultationsRelevant consultation replies which have been received after the report has been printed and before the Committee meeting will normally be reported orally in a summary form.

Late Representations and Requests for DefermentAny representations and requests for deferment in respect of planning applications on the Planning Committee agenda must be received by the Head of Planning in writing by 9am on the Wednesday before the meeting at the latest. The Council will not entertain a request for deferment unless it is supported by a full statement containing valid reasons for the request.

Delegated ApplicationsIn certain circumstances the Planning Committee will indicate that it is only prepared to grant or refuse planning permission if, or unless certain amendments to a proposal are undertaken or subject to completion of outstanding consultations. In these circumstances the Head of Planning can be delegated authority to issue the decision of the Planning Committee once the requirements of the Committee have been satisfactorily complied with. A delegated decision does not mean that planning permission or refusal will automatically be issued. If there are consultation objections, difficulties, or negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, then the application will have to be reported back to the Planning Committee or reported via the internal only

1

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr????????

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/

electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.

The Council does not allow the recording or photographing of its proceedings.

Order of PresentationThe report on planning applications is presented in the following order as shown below:-

Bexhill (All Wards)Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)Rye (Rye Ward)Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)Beckley, Northiam, Peasmarsh, Rye Foreign (Rother Levels Ward)Bodiam, Hurst Green, Salehurst & Robertsbridge (Salehurst Ward)Brede, Udimore, Westfield (Brede Valley Ward)Camber, East Guldeford, Icklesham, Iden, Playden (Eastern Rother Ward)Ticehurst, Etchingham (Ticehurst and Etchingham Ward)Ewhurst, Sedlescombe (Ewhurst and Sedlescombe Ward)Fairlight, Guestling, Pett (Marsham Ward)Neighbouring Authorities

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2007/3515/P 1 BEXHILL SIDLEY GOODS YARDNINFIELD ROAD

RR/2008/1272/P 2 BEXHILL 78 WRESTWOOD ROAD –LAND REAR OF

RR/2008/1442/P 3 BEXHILL 3A SUTHERLAND AVENUEOAK TREE HOUSE

RR/2008/1448/P 6 BEXHILL 154 BARNHORN ROAD

RR/2008/1497/P 8 BEXHILL 12-14 SUTHERLAND AVENUE

RR/2008/1689/P 12 BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK – LAND ADJ

RR/2008/1866/P 15 BEXHILL PICARDY1 HOLMESDALE ROAD

RR/2008/1357/P 17 BATTLE 9 AND 10 HIGH STREETDELIVERY OFFICE

RR/2008/1363/L 17 BATTLE 9 AND 10 HIGH STREETDELIVERY OFFICE

2

RR/2008/1584/P 19 BATTLE 77 HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2008/531/A 22 ASHBURNHAM MAIN ROAD – JUNCTION WITH A271

RR/2006/2441/P 23 PENHURST NORTH END AND HIGH RIDGEPENHURST LANE

RR/2008/1517/P 25 BURWASH SAFRON BRIERVICARAGE LANE

RR/2008/1238/P 29 NORTHIAM 3 QUICKBOURNE COTTAGESWHITBREAD LANE

RR/2008/1758/P 30 NORTHIAM HOLMLEANEW ROADMILL CORNER

RR/2008/1841/P 31 NORTHIAM HIGHFIELDS,MAIN STREET

RR/2008/1843/P 35 NORTHIAM HIGHFIELDSMAIN STREET

RR/2007/909/O 39 BODIAM PARK FARMJUNCTION ROAD

RR/2008/1568/O 43 BODIAM PARK FARM

RR/2008/1634/P 47 WESTFIELD GOULDS DRIVE – LAND ATMOOR LANE

RR/2008/1735/P 52 CAMBER 9, 9A, 10 AND 10A OLD LYDD ROAD

RR/2008/1492/P 55 ICKLESHAM WEATHERCOCK HOUSEWINDMILL LANE

RR/2008/1494/P 58 ICKLESHAM THE SALTINGSHARBOUR ROAD

RR/2008/1425/P 60 ETCHINGHAM GREENBANKSHIGH STREET

RR/2008/1617/P 64 EWHURST THE WHITE DOG INNVILLAGE STREET

RR/2008/893/P 66 SEDLESCOMBE PESTALOZZI VILLAGELADYBIRD LANE

RR/2008/1223/P 67 GUESTLING COGHURST HALL CARAVAN PARKIVYHOUSE LANE

--oo0oo—3

RR/2007/3515/P BEXHILL SIDLEY GOODS YARD, NINFIELD ROADDEMOLITION OF FORMER RAILWAY BUILDINGS AND SINGLE STOREY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. ERECTION OF TWO SINGLE STOREY BUILDINGS AND A TWO STOREY BUILDINGRother District Council

Statutory 8 week date: 13 March 2008

AMENDED PLANS

Introduction: This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 16 February 2008 when a decision to grant permission was delegated.The matter was reported again to Members on 10 March via the Notified D system prior to planning permission being granted on 17 March.As a result of further work to the scheme, and the withdrawal of active interest from a potential occupier of one of the blocks, some amendments are now proposed.

The amended plans: The scheme involves the provision of two single storey industrial buildings and a two storey office-style building. The changes are:Blocks 1 and 2: Sub-division of end units into two and resulting changes to door

openings. Removal of two external storage areas and re-arrangement of car parking.

Block 2 only: Reduction in roof height.Block 3: Change of roof pitch and increase to overall height. Removal of

external ramp and installation of lift. Replacement of windows by external doors on some units. Rearrangement of parking areas.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- The scheme has been re-advertised around the site and residents directly affected have been advised by letter. Any response will be reported to Committee.

SUMMARY The changes do not alter the concept of the original scheme and will not have any appreciable effect on its physical appearance overall.The site is set below the ground levels of the nearest residential properties and the minor increase in the height of Block 3 (about 1.2 metres maximum) to incorporate photovoltaic solar panels will not have an adverse effect on Highfield Gardens to the rear. The reduction in Block 2 can be considered an improvement.The sub-division of the units is something that, once the buildings are constructed, might take place without the need for permission. In any event there is no overall increase in floor space. Car parking provision, overall, remains changed.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (AMENDED DRAWINGS 71021/B3/01A; B2P/01B; B1-1C; B2E/01B AND 07/C)

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

1

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20073515p

RR/2008/1272/P BEXHILL 78 WRESTWOOD ROAD – LAND REAR OFERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH OFF-ROAD PARKINGMr H Turner

Statutory 8 week date: 08 August 2008

SITE 78 Wrestwood Road (Windover) is a two storey brick and tile house fronting Wrestwood Road almost opposite Bodiam Avenue. There is pedestrian access to Wychurst Gardens via a strip of garden about 3m wide between 21 and 21a Wychurst Gardens.

HISTORY (Relevant) B/70/223 Outline: Erect 1 building plot with access from Wychurst Gardens –

Refused.B/73/0284 Outline: Erect a detached semi bungalow with attendant garage on

land forming rear garden of Windover - Refused. RR/2000/433/P Outline: Erection of a detached bungalow and garage with access

via Wychurst Gardens – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow and parking spaces in a plot measuring 29.1m by 14.4m forming the rear section of Windover’s garden including a 3.2m wide section of garden between 21 and 21a Wychurst Gardens to provide access in the southerly direction. A previous outline application RR/2000/433/P for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage with access via Wychurst Gardens was refused, although the subsequent appeal was allowed.

CONSULTATIONS Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection concerned with the following: Undesirable backland development. Out of keeping with the immediate local area of well spaced housing with good

amenity space. Access in crowded small corner of cul-de-sac and will impinge on the current

adjacent properties and their own access. Potentially add to current crowded traffic in locality. Fire hydrant/stand pipe directly in front of access. Building will be a fire risk as no access for fire and emergency vehicles. Limited visibility from access. Wildlife in area. Problems during construction. Not an adequate turning circle. Refuse and recycling bins when put on drive for collection will curtail all access

to property. Noise from cars using the driveway. Increase noise and disturbance. Loss of privacy from first floor windows. The new dwelling will be overlooked from Windover. Light invasion.

2

SUMMARY A previous outline application RR/2000/433/P for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage with access via Wychurst Gardens was refused by Planning Committee by virtue:1. The development would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities

of existing dwellings in the vicinity. 2. Whilst the site is within a development boundary as defined in the Draft Rother

District Local Plan, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with Policies H10 and H13 of the Plan in that the form and character of the development would not be compatible with the adjacent surrounding area. In particular:a) the proposed development would have unacceptable impact on the

residential amenities of the neighbourhood by reason of form, layout and traffic movement.

A subsequent appeal against this refusal was allowed.Many of the issues raised with regard to the current application, such as access, traffic impact, and the backland plot being out of keeping with the locality, were considered and deemed acceptable by the Inspector with the grant of outline permission RR/2000/433/P.In allowing the appeal the Inspector commented, “My own view is that to achieve a development compatible with the surroundings it is necessary to ensure that any dwelling built on the site is and remains single storey”.While I have to concede that the principle of a dwelling on this plot is acceptable, the proposed chalet bungalow with windows in both gable ends and rooflights is not an appropriate development. The creation of first floor accommodation will allow views into the private gardens of neighbouring properties resulting in loss of privacy to the detriment of their residential amenities. A conventional single storey bungalow with no rooms in the roof area and a lower profile roof is the most that can be achieved on this restricted site. The current proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and I am therefore unable to support this proposal.

RECOMMENDATIONS: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The proposed dwelling with first floor accommodation and windows will be

intrusive to and will have views into the private gardens of neighbouring properties resulting in loss of outlook and privacy to the detriment of their residential amenities. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/1442/P BEXHILL 23A SUTHERLAND AVENUE, OAK TREE HOUSEERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO THE PENTHOUSE FLATOak Tree Properties

Statutory 8 week date: 03 July 2008

This application has been called off your Notified D list of application of 23 June 2008. It has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 15 July 2008.

SITE This application relates to a recent development comprising two blocks of flats on the corner of Sutherland Avenue and Eridge Close. The development is nearing completion.

3


HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2005/1496/P Erection of 10 flats in two blocks with underground parking

including access alteration – Approved.RR/2007/1127/P Change of window to patio doors to 3rd floor penthouse to match

others and to allow access to and use of outside flat roof area as private balcony and patio – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

PROPOSAL The proposal is as follows: Erection of a conservatory on a three story flat roof abutting he penthouse flat Change of a window to patio doors to give access from the penthouse flat to the

proposed conservatory (retrospective).

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- Letters have been received from Eridge Close Residents Association Ltd and St Christophers Flat Management Ltd (neighbouring properties) stating that there are no objections to this planning application.

SUMMARY The penthouse flat (vacant at present) occupies part of the 4 th storey and next to this is the enclosed roof above the 3 storey part of the building. A previous planning application (RR/2007/1127/P) for – The change of a window to patio doors to the penthouse to allow access to and use of the outside flat roof as a private balcony and patio – was refused in June 2007. The reason for refusal was that the use of this elevated outside area would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity as a result of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise disturbance. A subsequent appeal against this refusal was dismissed. The application now before you is an alternative scheme. It involves substituting the approved window for patio doors (a retrospective part of the application) and the erection of a conservatory attached to the penthouse on part of the outside area. A supporting statement has been provided with the application and this can be viewed in full on the website. It includes the following, which sets out the mitigation measures aimed at addressing the previous objections:

“Ventilation to the conservatory is achieved by small opening fanlights in the west and north sides and the design deliberately avoids openings allowing access onto the roof area. Access to the conservatory would be via a bedroom/study area. Obscure glazing is proposed in the flank facing the flats in St Christopher’s to prevent any overlooking from the conservatory although there is already a significant number of windows in Oak Tree House facing St Christopher’s. At seating level within the conservatory, as shown by the attached photographs, views of properties to the west and north would be negligible and no additional obscure glazing to the sides of the conservatory is considered necessary to safeguard the amenities of nearby dwellings.”

The proposed conservatory would have a plastic frame and a shallow-pitch polycarbonate roof. There are a number of issues to consider in the determination of this application:

(i) The design and external appearance of the structure: In these respects there are some concerns that the proposed conservatory is not in character with the existing buildings. However, it would not be particularly prominent from public vantage points and it is not considered that a refusal could be sustained on these grounds.

4

(ii) Neighbouring residential amenity: The applicant’s agent has indicated that the issues of overlooking, loss of privacy and noise would be addressed by containing all residential activity within the conservatory and incorporating the mitigation measures referred to above. Furthermore, it is said that any use of the outside area (roof) could be prevented by imposing conditions restricting window openings and prohibiting any doors to the outside. I am concerned that the practicalities of doing this would not be appropriate. These are explained under the following issue.

(iii) Suitability of the conservatory for future occupants: It is human nature, in my view, for any future occupiers of the proposed development to wish to use the remainder of the outside area during hot weather. Controlling this by restricting window openings and preventing the installation of outside doors would make the development impracticable and unacceptable in terms of the quality of the environment created for any future occupiers. The Local Plan states that all development should be fundamentally ‘fit’ for its purpose; and especially for residential development, it should be capable of accommodating the reasonable expectations of likely occupiers, including in terms of indoor and outdoor space. The proposed conservatory does not meet this requirement. The lack of doors to the outside and any restriction on opening windows would cause problems, particularly during hot weather, when there would be the inability to control the temperature of the conservatory and provide adequate ventilation. Moreover, lack of outside access would clearly lead to future problems with being able to clean the outside windows of the conservatory and its polycarbonate roof. The proposed development must therefore fail when assessed against Policy GD1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

In the event that planning permission is refused the matter will be passed to the planning enforcement section to address the matter of the unauthorised patio doors that have been installed to give access to the flat roof outside area.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. It has not been demonstrated that the development is fundamentally ‘fit’ for its

purpose and is capable of accommodating the reasonable needs of future occupiers, including providing appropriate amenities. The development therefore conflicts with Policy GD1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.


5


RR/2008/1448/P BEXHILL 154 BARNHORN ROADERECTION OF EXTENSION TO EXISTING CARE HOME TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SINGLE EN-SUITE BEDROOMS, DAYROOMS, ACTIVITY ROOMS, ASSISTED BATHROOMS AND FORMAL PARKING FACILITIES.Meeraraj Ltd


SITE The development site is to the rear (north) of the existing nursing home, on the north side of Barnhorn Road. There are properties on either side, with an existing nursing home, on the south side of Barnhorn Road.

HISTORYRR/81/1385 Change of use from private dwelling to rest home – No Further

ActionRR/82/0625 Outline: Erection of garage to form staff accommodation and

formation of parking spaces – ApprovedRR/88/2353 Two-storey extension to form more additional bedrooms with

bathroom – Appeal – Part AllowedRR/89/3056/P Two-storey extension to form 5 additional bedrooms with WC

facilities and new external staircase – ApprovedRR/90/0852/P Extension over existing garage at rear to form an additional two

bedrooms with en-suite – Approved RR/94/0259/PD Proposed extensions and alterations – Approved RR/98/1995/P Proposed single storey bedroom extension to existing nursing

home with revised parking and site entrance layout – Approved RR/2004/3231/P Erection of two-storey extension to existing nursing home with

revised parking – Refused RR/2005/2537/P Single storey rear extension – Approved ConditionalRR/2006/3341/P Two storey rear extension – Refused

PROPOSAL This application seeks full planning permission for a substantial rear extension to provide 22 new single bedrooms with en-suite facilities plus necessary additional dayroom/dining floor space, assisted baths, lift and staff room.The extension would be ‘L’ shaped in plan form and be of a traditional brick, render and clay tiled construction.A small flat roofed (3m by 4m) single storey reception area is also indicated in the north west (rear) corner of the existing building.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- No objection.Southern Water:- No objection. A formal application to Southern Water will be needed to connect to the main sewer. Rother Building Control should comment in respect of the use of soakaways for surface water.Environment Agency:- No comment.Planning Notice:- No representations received at the time of preparation of this report.

SUMMARY Members have inspected this site in the past and planning permission has been granted for a large single storey extension (RR/2005/2537/P – Not built). Planning permission was refused for a two storey extension under references RR/2004/3231/P and RR/2006/3341/P.

6

The two previous refusals were issued because of concerns about unacceptable levels of overlooking from first floor windows over the garden of 152 Barnhorn Road. This revised scheme to extend the premises has been prepared, with pre-submission discussions to have no first floor windows towards no.152 and therefore to have a comparable relationship with that property than the existing planning permission ref. RR/2005/2537/P.The application needs to be considered in the context of Local Plan Policy GD1 most specifically. The current scheme has a similar footprint to the 2005 permission, a comparable ground floor layout, plus a small area of first floor bedrooms served by stairs and a lift. The first floor rooms have their windows facing towards the car park and the countryside to the north. The elevation towards no.152 has no first floor windows or rooflight. I have written to the owner of this property advising of the application but to-date I have not received any comments, any received will be reported to your meeting.The proposed addition would raise the number of residents to 37; at this level the on-site provision of 11 parking spaces, ambulance bay and turning meets your standards. The scheme proposes the retention of important trees and those generally close to the site boundaries.The scheme is a pleasing design that respects the previous decisions made to safeguard the amenities of no.152. The relationship with this property is comparable to that of the 2005 planning permission. There is however, a need to ensure that no windows are installed in the east elevation at a later date. This can be achieved by condition as can the limitation of external lighting.In considering the previous application Southern Water raised concerns about drainage saying that the existing combined sewer was at capacity; I note there is no objection to this scheme. Similarly, the Environment Agency previously ‘flagged up’ the issue of bats; this was discussed previously with an Ecologist acting for the applicant and no such concern is now raised by the Agency. Previous concerns about the poor inter-relationship of bedroom windows and the access of some rooms to reasonable outlook and daylight have now been addressed.Subject to conditions I can now support this revised scheme which satisfies the requirements of Policy GD1.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time limit).2. CD9H (External materials). Insert b + b – Delete reference to Policies GD1(v),

S1(j) and EN2.3. CD4P (Tree retention/protection).

Reason: Insert b. Policies GD1(iv) and S1(f).4. CD6D (No surface water to foul sewer).5. CD7T (Bin/Recycling enclosures) – Insert ‘Extension’

Reason: Insert a.6. CD8O (Restrict windows). Insert – ‘west or east facing’.

Reason: a).7. CD11A (Floodlighting control). Insert ‘the site’.Notes:1. ND17 (Wildlife and Countryside Act informative).2. ND20 (Protected Species).3. ND54 (Bins/Recycling).4. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in

order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd,

7

Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (tel: 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate design, scale and form that complements the existing building, and relates satisfactorily with neighbouring dwellings and trees on the site. The development therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/1497/P BEXHILL 12-14 SUTHERLAND AVENUEOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 2 DWELLINGS AND ERECTION OF 3 STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 12 TWO BEDROOM AND 2 ONE BEDROOM FLATS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.Slate Securities Ltd


This application has been included on the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The site lies on the eastern side of Sutherland Avenue currently comprising of two main buildings, one dwelling and one property sub-divided into three flats. The site measures some 35m wide, some 63m at its deepest point (currently no. 14) stepping down to measure some 41m (currently no. 12). Each property is served by a separate vehicular access point. Boundary treatment is currently predominantly fencing and trees and hedges either side in places.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/2007/533/P Outline: Demolition of existing building and erection of replacement

building of ten apartments with alteration to an existing access and provision of 13 parking spaces - Refused

PROPOSAL The proposed scheme is presented in outline only and is seeking approval for means of access and scale only. Appearance, landscaping and layout are not being tested at this stage and therefore the details submitted regarding those three elements would be considered at under an application for ‘Reserved Matters’. The application seeks to erect a 2½ storey building containing fourteen flats with associated parking provision.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to the imposition of conditions and the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure funding for pedestrian schemes in the town centre. Further comments are awaited and will be reported.Southern Water: Raise concern that the development would increase flows in the existing sewerage system which is a combined surface and foul water system and an increase will increase the risk of flooding. The applicant is invited to explore an alternative system. Full comments can be viewed on the Planning Website.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.

8


http://www.southernwater.co.uk/

Sussex Police: Do not identify any major concerns with the proposals.Planning Notice: Four letters of objection have been received from four addresses representing five signatories. Also, two further letters of objection have been received from one Residents Association in which it is declared the comments in one letter represent the views of 21 flat owners, though only the Chairman has signed the letters. The Chairman has signed both letters. Concerns are raised regarding the following issues: Restricted width of the proposed vehicular access point Ongoing problems with on road parking and congestion in the area Compound the safety of the users of the highway Reduction in daylight to adjoining flats Loss of privacy/ overlooking Photographs and application form details are misleading Loss of perfectly sound and ‘elegant’ Edwardian houses in a prominent position Out of character Over development Noise nuisance from car parking areas Light pollution Lack of pedestrian crossing facilities Blocks of unwanted flats present in the area which are unfinished due to the

current economic downturn Copies of the all letters can viewed on the planning website.

SUMMARY The proposed development would result in the loss of two substantial Edwardian properties, one containing three self contained flats. The indicative plans show an illustrative streetscene with one three storey block of flats to the south and one two storey block of flats to the north. A portion of the site has been subject to a previously refused application for a three storey block containing 10 flats (RR/2007/533/P). This latest application consists of two elements, to consider the vehicular access to the site and the scale of the building. The Highway Authority have reported they support the proposed development and therefore consider it will not adversely impact upon the highway and conditionally support the application. They also require a financial contribution to be paid via a Section 106 Legal Agreement by the developer to be put towards pedestrian improvements in Bexhill town centre. The Highway Authority are satisfied sufficient on site parking provision has been provided for the scheme. Having considered the findings of the Highway Authority, including their request for a financial contribution and the concerns raised by local residents, I am of the opinion the financial contribution could assist in addressing concerns of local residents though the provision of crossing facilities. However, comments are awaited from the Highway Authority on this specific matter and it will be reported accordingly. Based on the information presented, I do not consider the proposed access and parking/ turning provision for the development causes demonstrable harm to the urban area or highway safety.With regard to the scale of the proposed building, I am of the opinion the development will, sit comfortably between the two existing buildings as illustrated on dwg. no. PR/19.07.07, date stamped 22 May 2008. The ridge height will not adversely impact upon the amenity of surrounding area, streetscene or properties. The proposed footprint shows the building will be set some 1m from the northern boundary and therefore some1.6m away from the south elevation of Bodiam Court. The northern end of the proposed building is shown to be the same depth as Bodiam Court and therefore not overbearing to the rear elevation of Bodiam Court. The south elevation of Bodiam

9

Court has windows set within it serving a bathroom, toilet and bedroom on both the ground and first floors. Having considered the development and its potential impact upon the windows and the rooms they serve, I am of the opinion by setting the proposed building back 1m from the boundary the ground floor flat will benefit as the neighbouring flank wall will be set further away. However, it should be noted the bedroom windows are secondary windows as the primary windows are set on the front elevation. I do not consider the proposed development will have a demonstrable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of the two flats set on the south side of Bodiam Court. Drawing number 06-803/002 indicates the inclusion of a first floor terrace area. Though it is indicated this will be partially enclosed, it is considered this could lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy through overlooking to the neighbouring property, Bodiam Court. As such a condition has been recommended to exclude this element from the scheme, though it is accepted this application seeks to reserve the layout and appearance of the building.While the plans are indicative, permission would set the parameters of scale and the number of flats at 14. I do note from the indicative plans that all the flats have kitchen-living rooms rather than separate kitchens. Southern Water has raised concern regarding the development due to the known capacity issues of the sewerage system in the area and appropriate conditions have been recommended to address their concerns.In determining this application I have taken into account the concerns raised by local residents and the views of the Highway Authority and Southern Water as well as other consultees. I am of the opinion the principle of erecting a 2½ storey building on the site is acceptable and the scale and access details are also acceptable. I consider the scheme does not conflict with adopted plan polices and can be conditionally supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1B. Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced

approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping and layout of the site, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing.Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

2. CD1C. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 2 above shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

3. CD1D. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

4. CD1E. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

5. The reconstructed access shall be in the position shown on the submitted plan, dwg. no. 06-803/003 and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 diagram and all works undertaken shall be executed and completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.

10

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until all parking areas and spaces for vehicles have been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans (dwg. no. 06-803/003, dated stamped 22 May 2008) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans (dwg. no. 06-803/003, dated stamped 22 May 2008) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the provision of cycle storage a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans (dwg. no. 06-803/003, dated stamped 22 May 2008) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. CD6B. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of both foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

10. CD7T (Amended). Before occupation of the flats hereby permitted commences, details of the siting and form of bins and their enclosure, for the storage and recycling of refuse within the site (internally or externally), and a collection point, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented and thereafter continued, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and PPS1, paragraph 20.

11

11. The building shall not exceed 9.2m in height at any point, measured from existing ground levels measured between the southern boundary Bodiam Court and northern boundary of The Croft. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

12. The permission hereby granted does not relate to the partially enclosed terrace set at first floor level to the north side of the building. Reason: To safeguard the neighbouring property from overlooking and loss of privacy in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

13. No development shall take place until full details of a scheme detailing suitable improvements to existing pedestrian facilities to provide access to Bexhill Town Centre, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, or as may be secured by a signed and sealed Legal Agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority. Such approved pedestrian improvements shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any flat or such later date that may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport & Environment of East Sussex County Council in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed 2½ storey building containing 14 self contained flats is of an appropriate scale and served by an appropriate access point and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(d)(f)(g)(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1689/P BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK - LAND ADJERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES.Mr Neil Blackwell


SITE The application site comprises the side garden of 3 Kites Nest Walk, formerly part of the rear garden of 62 Barnhorn Road and part of the rear garden of 64 Barnhorn Road. The site lies just within the development boundary for Bexhill. The site used to comprise some lawn with well established hedges and large trees/shrubs both within the garden areas and to the boundaries. All hedges, trees and shrubs have recently been removed with clearance work also impinging upon the land to the north outside the application boundary. Access is via the private drive off the private road of Kites Nest Walk and across the frontage of the existing and proposed properties in Kites Nest Walk.

12


HISTORY (Relevant to application site only)RR/2002/2124/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling and alteration to existing

access - Refused.RR/2003/302/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling and garage, demolish

existing garage and construction of extended access road to provide a new access - Refused.

RR/2004/215/P Outline: Erection of new dwelling and alteration to existing access – Refused - Appeal Not Considered.

RR/2004/2735/P Outline: Erection of dwelling and alteration to existing access – Refused - Appeal Dismissed.

RR/2006/3394/P Erection of detached two storey dwelling with integral double garage including dormer windows, balcony, Juliet balconies and rooflights, with provision of new vehicular access and alteration to an existing access including visibility splay across 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road - Withdrawn.

RR/2007/1461/P Erection of two storey dwelling (first floor in roofspace) with integral double garage, dormers, rooflights, parking and new vehicular access and alterations to visibility splay across 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application is submitted in part to replace the permission granted last year, RR/2007/1461/P, for a single dwelling to the rear of 62 Barnhorn Road. It now proposes a larger site area with details for 2 chalet bungalows as a continuation of Kites Nest Walk in a westerly direction along the rear of 62 and 64 Barnhorn Road. The proposals are considered by the applicant to reflect the size and detail previously approved. The 2 dwellings appear as single storey to the south, facing the rear of Barnhorn Road with two-storey elements to the front and sides.The existing double garage for 3 Kites Nest Walk would be demolished to enable continuation of the private access along the front, north boundary to serve the proposed dwellings. The access continues to the boundary with the rear of 66 Barnhorn Road and is situated less than 1m from the front bay window of plot 3a and 2m from the front bay of 3b. Two good sized parking spaces are to be provided on part of the frontage to 3 Kites Nest Walk which has a front garden of between 6 and 8 m deep.The proposed dwellings are 3 (3a) and 4 (3b) bedroom with one integral garage and a parking space in front. There is no front garden area as such and no on site turning facility. The dwelling immediately adjacent 3 Kites Nest Walk (3a) has been moved further back into the site with a reduced rear garden of 7m. Plot 3b has a deeper rear garden of 10m. Both plots have a minimum of 1m gap to the side boundaries for access. There is no space for landscaping with reliance on retention of trees located primarily on neighbouring land. CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Comments awaited.Highway Authority: Comments awaited.Southern Water: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: Has no comments.Planning Notice: None received at time of writing.

SUMMARY The permission issued last year for a single dwelling with rooms contained within the roofspace had been the subject of negotiation and amendment and was considered to follow the principle of the outline proposal considered acceptable by the

13

Inspector back in 2004, RR/2004/2735/P, in terms of its size, design and plot layout. As such a refusal of that proposal would have been difficult to justify. The same issues regarding size, design and layout continue to be relevant and of concern.The size of the dwellings has been significantly increased. The approved dwelling had a floorspace of 105.23m2 while the new dwellings have increased to 137m2, excluding in both instances the hall, landing, stairs and garages. Garden areas are also reduced with a smaller rear garden to plot 3a and no front gardens thus increasing the amount of developed area to 52%. The Inspector had previously considered that 42% coverage of the site was not unreasonable. 52% is however considered unreasonable and when combined with the lack of space and hard surfacing to the frontages, results in a cramped appearance to the development.The lack of front area results in a lack of turning facility and the location of the access almost immediately adjacent the front windows of the new dwellings will result in noise and general disturbance for the prospective occupiers. While the occupiers of Plot 3a could reverse from their drive onto the access to leave in a forward gear, there is no such opportunity for the occupiers of plot 3b who would have to reverse along the full length of the access into Kites Nest Walk itself.With regards to the specific design, it is noted that the dwellings are not confined to rooms within the roofspace as previously considered acceptable by the Inspector, both having two storey elements to the front and sides. Additionally it is noted that while there are no first floor side windows to the east and west boundaries of the plot, the proposed dwellings do contain openable first floor bedroom and bathroom windows within the facing elevation only 2m apart and overlapping with each other. Such a layout will result in a loss of privacy for both occupiers. These points have been raised with the applicant and amended plans are expected for the Committee’s consideration. However, in its current form the proposed scheme by reason of the size, design and layout of the pair of dwellings is considered to conflict with Local Plan policy and with Government guidance aimed at ‘producing good quality design that improves the local environment’ as set out in PPS1 and PPS3.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development, providing substantial mostly two-storey dwellings

with surrounding hardsurfacing covering a large part of the site, will by reason of their size, design and layout, result in a cramped form of development out of character with and detrimental to the layout and appearance of the immediate area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government guidance contained within PPS1, particularly paragraphs 33-34 and PPS3, particularly paragraphs 13 and 16.

2. The proposed development does not provide adequate turning facilities to facilitate access and egress in a forward gear along the length of the access road and locates the access road within 1m of the front window on plot 3a and 2m of plot 3b. As such the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of prospective occupiers of both dwellings by reason of the general noise, fumes and disturbance associated with vehicular traffic and would also result in highway hazards for pedestrians and vehicles sharing the access road, contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(i, ii, iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government guidance contained within PPS3, paragraphs 13 and 16.

3. The proposed dwellings have been designed with side bedroom and bathroom windows at first floor level, with opening casements only 2m apart and in overlapping positions, resulting in a loss of privacy and amenity for the

14

prospective occupiers, contrary to modern expectations and the criteria within Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1866/P BEXHILL PICARDY, 1 HOLMESDALE ROADCHANGE OF USE FROM ANCILLARY SUMMERHOUSE/ HOME OFFICE TO OFFICE.Mr A Green


The application has been included on the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The site lies to the west side of Holmesdale Road, set within the development boundary for Bexhill. The building is located in the south west corner of the property’s garden and abuts the boundaries of 1a Holmesdale Road, 26 Collington Avenue and the garage block to The Croft, Sutherland Avenue.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/2007/1881/P Proposed conservatory to rear – Approved Conditional PROPOSAL A summer house/home office building was constructed in the rear garden of the property. This building did not require planning permission because (a) it is more than 5 metres away from the dwelling house; (b) the height of the building did not exceed 4 metres; and (c) the total area of the ground covered by buildings or enclosure within the curtilage (other than the original dwelling house) did not exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwelling house). Since the building has been constructed the applicant’s business has expanded and staff are now employed resulting in the office use being no longer ancillary to the dwelling house, and a material change of use for which planning permission is required has occurred. This application seeks permission for the change of use from summerhouse/home office to office.

CONSULTATIONS Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY A summer house/home office building was constructed in the rear garden of the property, this building did not require planning permission. Since the building has been in place the applicant’s business has expanded, with the applicant stating, “My wife and I started our new business at the beginning of 2007 with great success and continued our success throughout the year. We constructed a summerhouse of quality in the rear garden for our family use and as our home office for home-working. Within a year of business commencement we had to make the difficult decision of expanding to manage the increased business depends. We recruited two locally with a third a few months later who is currently moving into the area. Commuting for the staff is limited where one cycles, one is dropped off and collected and the other will also cycle once relocation has completed. Our business remains competitive and our growth has expanded to as large as we wish to manage but should further expansion be necessary, then we would look to relocate elsewhere in Bexhill ”.Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1 and EM6.

15


While home working is encouraged in appropriate circumstances as it can bring benefits, particularly in a reduction in commuting, proposals have to be critically assessed with the main considerations in this instance being the introduction of a business use into the predominantly residential area and the impact it may have on the residential amenities of the area.Policy EM6 states, Proposals for business uses operating from residential properties, including for extensions or alterations for such a purpose, will be permitted where they do not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent properties or the character of the area including as a consequent of traffic generation.The business has a workforce of four people including the applicant. The work is computer based and does not require customers to visit the site or for the employees to regularly leave the site. It is understood that the employees are local people, not all of whom travel to work by car. It is therefore my opinion that this current operation does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or represent a significant increase in traffic generated to the site, meeting the objectives of the above Policy. However, in order to fully assess the impact of the development and control the use I recommend a temporary permission personal to the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CD1G (Temporary permission) [Insert b] [Date – 3 years] Amend – replace ‘land’

with ‘building’Reason: a. [Insert – Use] Policy GD1 and S1(f)

2. CD8K (Personal Permission) [Insert – Mr Andrew Green] 3 yearsReason: To prevent a general business use from operating in the building, which may have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The use hereby permitted shall only be carried out in the building between the hours of 08:30 and 17:30 Monday to Friday.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The use shall be limited to a maximum number of four people working in the building at any time.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The current operation does not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or represent a significant increase in traffic generated to the site. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policies GD1(ii) and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


16


RR/2008/1357/P BATTLE 9 AND 10 HIGH STREET, DELIVERY OFFICEMODIFICATION TO VEHICLE STORAGE COVERED AREA AND ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO SORTING ANNEXE. ERECTION OF DETACHED TIMBER WORKSHOP FOR BICYCLE REPAIRRoyal Mail Group Plc


RR/2008/1363/L BATTLE 9 AND 10 HIGH STREET, DELIVERY OFFICEERECTION OF EXTENSION TO SORTING ANNEXERoyal Mail Group Plc


These applications have been called off the ‘Notified D’ list of reports of 18 June 2008 and have been included in the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The Battle Delivery Office is located to the rear of Battle Post Office within the town centre conservation area. The main buildings to the front with the High Street are Grade II listed and it is within an area of archaeological importance. There are a number of outbuildings and extensions to the rear, which house the delivery office. The side boundaries comprise 2m high, old brick walls, fencing to the garage block on the east (Kenwards Yard) and trees to the side/rear, which screen the car park from the adjacent George Meadow (public open space). A single width car access leads to the car park at the rear.

HISTORY (relevant planning)A/64/1223 Extension to post office and sorting office - Approved.A/72/1917 Extension - Approved Conditional.RR/80/1955 Alterations to front elevation and upgrading of premises - Approved

Conditional.RR/98/61/P Alteration to sorting office and store. Construction of canopy and

boundary wall - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application proposes to replace part of an existing timber framed shelter with a brick extension to the existing sorting annexe. It is located well away from the main building and is designed to match the existing in terms of its materials and general appearance. Part of the proposal also includes the relocation of a timber shed/workshop from within the shelter to the south adjoining the car park. A covered way would also be extended between the existing annexe and the rear door of the main outbuilding utilising simple PVC sheeting on a timber frame as existing.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Oppose this application as it may add to already serious congestion in this area and be exacerbated by the presence of large delivery vehicles. Also consider that there would be an unacceptable over-concentration of buildings on a small site in a conservation area.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Has no objections but advises that the Health & Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 applies to this development.County Archaeologist:- Due to the archaeological sensitivity of Battle a programme of works condition is recommended.

17

Planning Notice:- One letter of objection from the Robertsbridge Enterprise Group on the following grounds: Transfer of jobs from Robertsbridge to Battle, which will increase the carbon

footprint of mail delivery. Alternative buildings exist in Robertsbridge that could be used.

Increased traffic in Battle centre of delivery vehicles and workers cars. Also concerned regarding space standards.

SUMMARY The main issues with regard to these applications are considered to relate to the requirement to protect the historic and architectural character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area, protection of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and impact upon the highway situation.The sorting annexe extension is not easily visible and does not represent any detrimental impact for neighbouring properties/occupiers. It is not read as part of the listed building and is not considered to affect the setting either. The proposed additional structures are minor in size in comparison to the overall extent of the curtilage and given the screening to the site there will be no visible impact upon the character or appearance of the conservation area. The workshop and covered way are temporary structures that can be removed upon cessation of use. The shed is isolated and not seen in context with the listed building and therefore has no impact upon it. While the extension of the covered way may have some impact upon the appearance of the listed building, it is an extension of an existing structure and thus does little to change the existing situation. It is a minor work that can easily be removed and has no structural impact upon the listed building. As such it is not considered to be detrimental to the requirement to protect and enhance the listed building or the conservation area.The use as a delivery/sorting office already exists and the proposed small extension is not considered to represent any significant intensification of the use. As such the introduction of any additional noise and disturbance to neighbours is considered to be minimal. With regard to the highway situation, the site has adequate parking for any increase in staff numbers and the agent has written to confirm that no additional delivery vehicles are expected at the premises as the existing vehicles have the capacity to serve the small extension. At the time of the planning officers mid morning site visit the car park was almost empty. The access to the delivery office is located off the High Street facing Abbey Green where parking restrictions (double yellow lines) are in operation. Existing delivery vehicles stop within the Abbey Green road and are thus clear of traffic in the High Street. As such the proposal is not considered to represent an increase in highway hazards such as to justify refusal of the proposal.The objector’s main objection seems to relate to the loss of employment within Robertsbridge. Although an issue, the location of the delivery office is for the applicant to determine and not a planning matter in this instance. These applications relate to the proposed minor extension and alteration of an existing employment site.While acknowledging the comments of the Town Council and the objector, the proposal represents a minor increase to the size of an existing employment premises in Battle town centre. The proposal is not considered to represent a significant increase in vehicular traffic to the site and while not an enhancement of the conservation area, it does not represent any harm to it and as such no objections are raised on policy grounds. The proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the fabric, structure or setting of the listed building and consequently no policy objections are raised in relation to the listed building aspect of the proposal either.

18

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2008/1357/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A – (Standard time period).2. CD12F – (Archaeology) - delete EN22.3. CD9H – (Materials). “samples” “buildings and structures”4. The workshop and covered way hereby permitted on the site shall be removed

from the land on which they are situated within 6 months of the cessation of their use by the delivery office or associated post office.

Note: ND6 – LB “RR/2008/1363/L”

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension and structures are considered to be of an appropriate size, design and appearance and will not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area or setting of the listed building nor the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

RR/2008/1363/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CD1F – (LB time period).2. CD9H – (Materials). “samples” “buildings and structures”Note: ND36 – PP “RR/2008/1357/P”

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension and structures are considered to be of an appropriate size, design and appearance and will not adversely affect the historic or architectural character or appearance of the listed building and therefore comply with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government guidance within PPG15, ‘Planning and The Historic Environment”.


RR/2008/1584/P BATTLE 77 HASTINGS ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr Hodges


This application has been included on the Committee site inspection list.

SITE 77 Hastings Road is a detached single storey property on the north east side of Hastings Road within the Development Boundary as identified within the Rother District Local Plan for Battle. The plot has a width of about 21m and an average depth of 115m.

HISTORYNone relevant to this proposal.

19

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20081363l


PROPOSAL The application proposes the demolition of the existing property and the erection of two new dwellings, one at the front and one behind. The front property, set some 10m back from the roadside boundary (excluding verge), would be a chalet with first floor dormer windows at the front only. The design of this property is wholly traditional in brick and tile with half hipped roof and incorporates an integral single garage.The rear property would be sited just within the development boundary with its front elevation 37m behind the rear elevation of the frontage dwelling. This property would be of a single storey flat roofed contemporary design, with accommodation on split level. Textured render and timber cladding are specified under a parapeted ‘living’ flat roof. A flat roofed double garage is indicated forward of the dwelling.The existing vehicular access would be widened to serve both properties.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “Whilst in principle, the Council has no objection to the development of sites along Hastings Road where the size of the site is capable of additional dwellings, they are opposed to this proposal because it would create an undesirable precedent in the sense that it would depart from the existing linear layout with new buildings at the rear. It would also generate existing traffic emerging onto an already busy road.”Highway Authority:- No objection subject to conditions relating to the access position/construction, provision of on-site parking/turning and the maintenance of the visibility splay.Planning Notice:- Letters of objection have been received from 5 properties at the time of preparing this report including the neighbour to the west, together with a letter from the neighbour to the east who does not object but makes comments. See website for full text. Over development Visibility at access inadequate Recent fatal accident at this point in Hastings Road Application implies development has already been agreed Would set a precedent for development at the rear of existing properties Design of Plot 2 is out of character Loss of trees Plot 1 will be dominant in street scene Loss of privacy Poor publicity of application Plot 2 is too close to the development boundary A pair of semi-detached houses would be more appropriate Oak tree on adjoining land is not shown – may be affected Rear property should be restricted to single storey A 6ft fence should be provided to boundary with no.79 to help reduce noise and

no hedge/trees on boundary should be interfered with Only bungalows should be permitted

SUMMARY This application relates to land within the Development Boundary and therefore there is no ‘in principle’ objection to redevelopment of the land residentially. The application needs to be considered in the context of Local Plan Policies GD1 and BT1.The proposed development is in tandem - one property behind another; this is often an unacceptable form of layout because of the effect upon the amenities of existing dwellings. That is not however to say that all tandem (backland) schemes are automatically unacceptable. Each proposal needs to be assessed for its effects bearing

20

in mind that if permission is refused and an appeal submitted, it is necessary to be able to demonstrate what harm will be caused and that the harm cannot be adequately mitigated by conditions. In presenting this application the applicant’s agent has sought to demonstrate that the scheme has been designed to ensure that harm is minimised.The first issue to consider is that of traffic generation and highway safety. Clearly two dwellings will create more traffic movements but the Highway Authority have physically measured the available visibility on the ground and determined that the required 120 metres is available. No objection is raised on these grounds by Highways. I note the Town Council’s concern in this respect.To achieve the layout proposed has required the dwelling on Plot 1 to be placed well in front of the existing bungalow and the recently completed properties to the west (75a and b). This raises the issue of appearance in the street scene. Hastings Road does not have a clearly defined ‘building line’; the depth of front gardens varies considerably. There is no doubt that the contrast in the siting of Plot 1 and no.75b is considerably emphasised by the application site being at a higher level. I do however observe that there is a similar existing arrangement between the existing bungalow to be demolished and no.79, albeit now much concealed by mature hedge/tree growth. Some trees/shrubs are indicated to be retained forward of Plot 1 but they will not, in my view, mitigate the contrast previously referred to. The acceptability or otherwise of this is a matter of judgement; in my view it will be quite obvious when travelling out of Battle.The effect of traffic movements along the access drive to the rear plot needs to be considered on both neighbours and the future occupiers of Plot 1. The existing access drive already passes close to the boundary with no.79 to the present single garage at the rear. The effect of the proposal on no.79 is therefore slight and I note the owner of this property does not have strong concerns. The property to the west (75b) would be exposed to an increase in vehicle based noise/vehicle lights etc to the rear although the proposed garage does give separation and would provide a baffle to some degree. Plot 1 would suffer the greatest effect with an exposed side and rear boundary to the access/turning area. New fencing/planting can be incorporated to reduce the effect in part and of course occupiers would be aware of the arrangement from the start. There is an important tree at the boundary with no.79 that would likely suffer root compaction from the vehicle turning area; this can be addressed by re-positioning the garage closer to the boundary with no.75 but this would further expose the rear of Plot 1 to vehicle turning movements/noise/light pollution etc.Finally, consideration must be given to the effect of the dwellings upon the general amenities and residential enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The boundary with no.79 is a mature one and given the very low design of dwelling proposed I do not believe that the effect on this property would warrant withholding planning permission. No. 75b is rather different in that the boundary is markedly less substantial and notwithstanding the fact that there is some boundary screening the presence of the proposed development will be obvious to no.75. The frontage dwelling has been designed to minimise the risk of overlooking/loss of privacy but it would be a dominant presence within the front garden and during the winter months may overshadow. The application includes a longitudinal section that demonstrates the comparison of levels relative to the fence line. There is a minimum of 20m between the rear elevation of no.75b and the front elevation of plot 2, and both contain bedroom windows. Between the two is the proposed double garage which in part prevents mutual overlooking. The resiting of the garage, as mentioned above in relation to the turning area, would further protect privacy. However, that increases the impact of built form upon the rear garden of no.75. The applicant’s agent has suggested further tree planting as a screen.The applicant’s agent has carefully presented a difficult proposal which nonetheless has negative effects which, when taken individually, might not justify a refusal

21

sustainable at appeal. The judgement is in my view finely balanced but I have to conclude that cumulatively the adverse effects that I have identified above lead me to conclude, on balance, that the proposal should not be supported. I am also mindful that there are many properties along Hastings Road with similar plots; notwithstanding that each application must be considered on its merits, approval of this application would make other similar proposals difficult to resist. This would erode the character of one of the primary routes into the town. The Town Council note the existing linear form of development and the precedent that may be set.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development would, If permitted, represent an undesirable form of

tandem development that would not only have a detrimental effect upon the amenities of adjoining properties but would also create amenity difficulties for the occupiers of the new dwelling upon Plot 1 by reason of the vehicle movements generated by the dwelling on Plot 2. Moreover, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar tandem development to the detriment of the spacious linear development character of Hastings Road. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy GD1(i)(ii)(iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(j), S6(d) and EN1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/531/A ASHBURNHAM MAIN ROAD - JUNCTION WITH A271NON ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL SIGN (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Malcolm Baker


SITE The application site is land at the top of Hammer Hill (C18) in Ashburnham to the north-east of the junction with the A271.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2007/1528/A Two non-illuminated post mounted directional sign boards at

junction with A271 and outside Pound Cottage - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application for the retention of a non-illuminated, double sided directional sign board which has been sited on land belonging to the Ashburnham Estate at the junction with the A271. The sign has been put up to direct and attract passing trade to the Ash Tree Inn which is a well established public house located to the west of Brown Bread Street in Ashburnham. A covering letter from the applicant explaining the need for the sign for The Ash Tree Inn is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Highway Authority: “… The proposed sign does not have a detrimental effect on visibility splays and on that basis I do not wish to raise an objection.”Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

22


SUMMARY Although advance directional signs are not generally acceptable, I am mindful of the fact that Members gave support for a proposal (RR/2007/893/A) to erect a directional sign on the A21 to advertise a farm shop in Poppinghole Lane, Robertsbridge. In that instance, the committee took the view that it would be appropriate to grant a temporary consent to support a local rural business. There is no highway objection to the sign and I consider the sign to be of an appropriate size and design that does not harm the visual appearance of the locality within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Taking all the above into consideration, my recommendation is to recommend consent be granted for a temporary period of 2 years.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT)1. The display of the directional sign board hereby permitted shall be discontinued

and the land restored to its former condition on or before (2 years).Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. CD2B (Advertisements)3. CD2C (Advertisements)4. CD2D (Advertisements)5. CD2E (Advertisements)6. CD2F (Advertisements)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The sign is of an appropriate design and does not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 (j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2006/2441/P PENHURST NORTH END AND HIGH RIDGE, PENHURST LANEDEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING DWELLINGS AND REPLACEMENT WITH A SINGLE TWO STOREY DETACHED FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING DORMER WINDOWS AND PROVISION OF THREE CAR PARKING SPACESPanaphur Charitable Trust


SITE This application relates to a pair of semi-detached bungalows on the west side of the C412 Penhurst Lane, to the north of Great Spreys Farmhouse.


PROPOSAL it is proposed to demolish the existing pair of dwellings and to erect a single detached property with accommodation on two floors. The new dwelling would be within the residential curtilage of the demolished properties utilising the existing vehicular access. The design submitted is for a dwelling with a 1½ storey central section flanked by two single storey elements using brick, weather-boarding and plain clay roof tiles to reflect the local vernacular.

23

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008531a

The new dwelling would be at right angles to the road so as to present the shortest (single storey) elevation to the frontage. This would be a shorter elevation that the existing pair and slightly further from the road.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The Parish Council broadly approve of this proposed replacement dwelling. However, we do not approve of the mass of windows on the southern side. We feel that this feature out of keeping with the cottage style design in its rural location in the AONB. When the high hedges are removed (as they inevitably will be, this will be a very prominent and unacceptable feature on the skyline, reflecting the sun for most of the day.This site has a long history of drainage problems therefore a rigorous condition should be applied, to ensure adequate foul and surface water systems are installed before occupation.Planning Notice:- A letter has been received from the surveyors acting for the agricultural tenant advising that they raise no objection provided that their client (Penhurst Estate Company Ltd) is a signatory to the Section 106 Agreement. They would not support the application without being a signatory party to the Section 106 Agreement.

SUMMARY Members should be aware that this application proceeded towards the grant of planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, following a Notified Delegated report in October 2006. However, during the preparation of the Section 106 it came to light that the appropriate notice was not served upon the tenant who had the benefit of a full agricultural tenancy. This omission has now been rectified. The proposal satisfies the requirement of HG10 in that the new dwelling is within the curtilage and it occupies a similar footprint; planning permission would not have been required for the conversion of the present pair into a single property. I therefore conclude that a single new dwelling is appropriate. The proposal includes some accommodation at first floor level, which aids the ‘cottage’ design concept. The proposal is not dissimilar in principle from several other countryside sites where 1½ storey dwellings have replaced existing bungalows. I find the proposal acceptable.A Section 106 Agreement is essential to ensure that only one dwelling is erected on the site and that rights to rebuild a second are extinguished. Both the applicant and the agricultural tenant have confirmed willingness individually to enter into a Section 106 but for non planning reasons there have been difficulties in getting both to sign the Agreement together. I understand that a similar end result could be achieved by the applicant signing the Section 106 and a Grampian condition being imposed to prevent implementation of the planning permission whilst the leasehold interest remains in being. In general I believe it is best to avoid conditions that bring third parties into the matters the subject of planning conditions. In my view it is preferable to adhere to your normal practice of requiring the Section 106 Agreement to be ‘key’ to the planning permission and that it should be signed by the relevant parties prior to the permission being issued.I have noted the Parish Council’s observations in respect of the rear windows but I do not believe that this element could be the justification for with holding planning permission. There is a roadside hedge that reduces the public views to this elevation. I acknowledge the Parish comment that hedges do sometimes get removed but in this case the property would lose its private garden space if this was to occur. I therefore conclude that the risk is low in this respect. I would propose the imposition of a hedge retention condition requiring replanting in the event of removal.

24

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SECTION 106 AGREEMENT)1. CN7B (External materials – a & c)2. The external weatherboard cladding shall be of timber feather edged type only

painted white and thereafter maintained in that condition unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: RC2

3. CN8C (Foul and Surface water details)4. The existing roadside hedge shall be retained at a minimum height of not less

than 1.5m. In the event of the hedge dying, being removed or becoming seriously damaged or diseased a replacement hedge of similar species shall be planted unless the Local Planning Authority gives consent to any variation.Reason: RC12

5. CD7T (Bin/Recycling provision) Insert b.Reason: Insert b.

Note: ND7 (S106 Planning Obligation)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is for a replacement dwelling of an appropriate size design that will not adversely affect the character of the area and therefore complies with Policy HG10 and GD1 of the Modified Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan (March 2006).


RR/2008/1517/P BURWASH SAFRON BRIER, VICARAGE LANEERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY DETACHED HOUSE SERVED BY A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN LAUREL BANK AND SAFRON BRIER WITH PARKING SPACES SERVED BY THE EXISTING EASTERN ACCESS.Mr & Mrs Meeks


SITE The application site is currently part of the rear and side garden of Laurel bank, which is a detached dwelling located to the south side of Vicarage Lane.

HISTORYRR/2006/2064/P Erection of two storey detached dwelling with attached single

storey garage with alteration to an existing access - Refused.RR/2007/712/P Erection of a two storey detached dwelling with attached garage

with alteration to an existing access - Refused - Appeal dismissed.

PROPOSAL This application seeks to erect a three bedroom detached two storey dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Support proposal. ‘Please note this is the decision of Burwash Parish Council. The decision to defer to Rother District Council was made at the previous application and now the plans have been amended.’

25

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/rother/PAS/appforms_externalcasefile.do?appNumber=rr20062441p&action=search

Highway Authority: Recommends any consent should include conditions ensuring a turning space is provided and retained, parking areas are provided and retained and the access is constructed satisfactorily and in the correct position.Planning Notice: 2 letters of objection received containing the following comments (summarised): Objections remain basically the same as previously stated. House will be intrusive and completely out of character with area. Infrastructure not suitable. Additional traffic will cause major problems. A number of trees will be destroyed. Neighbours privacy destroyed. Intrusive on neighbours. No application made for vehicular access which was put in place some time ago. Garage could be instated in the future. Four bedroom house instead of three. Insufficient parking. Not enough room to turn a car in the designated parking area. Use of footpath by vehicles in the future would not be enforceable by the

planning office. Mistake in the Design and Access Statement. Covenants attached to Safron Brier along with properties to west.

SUMMARY The property is located within Burwash development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Policies S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan apply to this application.Planning permission was refused in 2006 for the erection of a dwelling on this plot because it was considered not to protect the character of the area and the use of the access drive, running between Safron Brier and Laurel Bank, would have harmed the amenities of neighbouring properties. A second application for a dwelling was refused and dismissed at appeal in 2007. The inspector’s principal concern was the effect of the proposed drive and the traffic that would use it and concluded that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of both Laurel Bank and Safron Brier through noise and intrusion. The inspector accepted that the existing trees would provide a measure of screening and prevent the new building from being overbearing on Safron Brier, but did have concerns that, because of the lack of light and view, there could be pressure in the future to remove the evergreen trees closest to the northwest corner of the new house. He commented that their removal could result in some overlooking of the garden of Safron Brier from the first floor windows and it would not be reasonable to require windows to have obscure glazing where they serve habitable rooms.The current application proposes a two storey dwelling set into rising ground in the same position and of the same scale and design as previously dismissed at appeal although some window and door alterations have been made. The inspector’s main reason for refusal has been addressed in this latest application with the removal of the drive. Access to the property will be provided via a footpath running between Safron Brier and Laurel Bank, which is not to be used by motor vehicles. A parking and turning area is proposed fronting Vicarage Lane, forward of Laurel Bank’s building line. I am of the opinion that this will have a similar impact on the amenities of occupiers of Laurel Bank and Safron Brier as the vehicles currently using the existing driveway and parking area serving Safron Brier. A 2 metre high fence with trellis on top is to be erected on the eastern boundary with a similar treatment to the other side. This should prevent the

26

vast majority of potential overlooking from the footpath and protect the amenities of the occupiers of Safron Brier and Laurel Bank. The Highway Authority is satisfied an adequate turning space and parking has now been provided. To overcome the inspector’s concern about potential overlooking from first floor windows, a high level and two obscurely glazed windows at first floor on the northern elevation windows are proposed. Even if vegetation was removed in the future to provide additional light I am of the opinion that these new windows will prevent the majority of overlooking. The habitable rooms at first floor level will still benefit from a standard window and patio doors on the southern elevation and patio doors to the western elevation which will provide natural light and views to the occupants. I am satisfied that with compliance with appropriate conditions this scheme can now be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the proposed development reflects and is in keeping with the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. CD8O (Restricted window permitted development) Insert: north, east and west. Reason: a.

4. The proposed boundary treatment shown on the approved plan, drawing numbers 9720/000 revision P/00 and 9720/001 revision P/01 date stamped 10 June 2008, shall be erected at a minimum height of 2 metres before the first occupation or use of the new dwelling hereby permitted and therefore retained in that condition unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garage, building or structure shall be erected and no caravan or mobile home shall be kept or stationed on the land.Reason: To safeguard the visual character and appearance of the development and locality and protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (ii, iv & v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The proposed footpath shown on the approved plan, drawing numbers 9720/000 revision P/00 and 9720/001 revision P/01 date stamped 10 June 2008, shall be used by pedestrians only and no vehicular access whatsoever shall be provided between Safron Brier and Laurel Bank.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority details for the landscaping of the site. The details shall include indications of all existing trees, vegetation and

27

hedgerows on the land including details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development and a planting plan with a schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality and protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 (ii, iv & v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, drawing numbers 9720/009 revision P/00 and 9720/001 revision P/01 date stamped 10 June 2008, and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policies S1 (d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. The development shall not be occupied until a parking area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans, drawing number 9720/000 revision P/00 and 9720/001 revision P/01 date stamped 10 June 2008, and the area shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policies S1 (d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. The new access shall be in the position shown on the approved plan, drawing numbers 9720/000 revision P/00 and 9720/001 revision P/01 date stamped 10 June 2008, and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 diagram and all works undertaken shall be executed and completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policies S1 (d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed two storey dwelling is of an appropriate design, does not prejudice highway safety and does not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


28


RR/2008/1238/P NORTHIAM 3 QUICKBOURNE COTTAGES, WHITBREAD LANEERECTION OF OUTBUILDING FOR HATCHERY AND GARAGE WITH ROOM IN THE ROOF FOR DOMESTIC OFFICEMrs S Murtagh

Statutory 8 week date: 26 June 2008

This site has been added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE This end of terrace cottage is located on the north east side of Quickbourne Lane and benefits from a very large garden. The applicant also owns an adjoining field used in connection with the keeping of ornamental wildfowl. The site falls within countryside and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/95/267/P Removal of greenhouses and erection of double garage with

domestic workshop and poultry feed store. Access improvement. Approved.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect a 15.85m x 5.07m x 5.76m high outbuilding at the very bottom of the 65m long approx rear garden. This would occupy the site of two greenhouses and two sheds. The building would be clad using timber weatherboard and plain clay tiles and would be used to provide a single garage with storage as well as a more secure hatchery to replace the existing sheds. Part of the roof space would also be used as a domestic office with access via an external staircase attached to the south western end.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support approval.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to visual impact upon the landscape and AONB and impact upon local amenity. Relevant policies include GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. With regard to visual impact, the proposed building would be sited immediately adjacent to a similar sized building on the adjoining owner’s land. That building has set a precedent for buildings of that size in that location, and although the proposed building would be 0.5m higher and 3m longer, this increase is not considered sufficient to render it out of keeping with surrounding development and harmful to the character and appearance of the landscape and AONB. Because of its long distance from the adjoining property, it is also unlikely to have any adverse impact upon neighbouring residential amenity. Existing boundary planting will ensure that no significant overlooking from the external staircase will occur. However, it would be appropriate to impose a condition that the building shall only be used for domestic purposes and in connection with the keeping of ornamental wildfowl belonging to the owners of 3 Quickbourne Cottages and not for any trade or business.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. CD9H (Materials). Insert A – b. details; B – a. building.

29

3. The building shall be used only for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling as such, and in connection with the keeping of ornamental wildfowl belonging to the owners of 3 Quickbourne Cottages, and not for any trade of business.Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate siting, size, design and appearance and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/1758/P NORTHIAM HOLMLEA, NEW ROAD, MILL CORNER PROPOSED EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO ROOF TO UPGRADE EXISTING DERELICT BUNGALOWMr J Fielding


SITE The application site is within a row of residential properties outside of the Northiam development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2008/940/P Erection of extension and roof conversion of existing bungalow –

Refused.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought to convert the existing bungalow into a three bedroom chalet bungalow with two bathrooms, facilitated by increasing the height of the existing roof by one metre and extending the building towards the boundary with the neighbouring property to the east, Orchard End. The proposal includes the addition of two dormer windows to the front elevation and a rooflight to the rear elevation. A hipped end would be created one metre off the boundary with Orchard End.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – Comments to be reported.Planning Notice: – No representations received.

SUMMARY Approval is sought to convert the existing modest two bedroom bungalow into a three bedroom chalet bungalow with two bathrooms, facilitated by increasing the height of the existing roof and extending the building towards the boundary with the neighbouring property, Orchard End. Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan are relevant to this application. A proposal for a larger four bedroom chalet bungalow with three bathrooms was reported to the Planning Committee on 22 May 2008. The scheme included the addition of two dormer windows, French doors and a balcony to the front elevation and two

30


dormer windows and three rooflights to the rear elevation. A side extension with a half hipped gable end was also proposed close to the boundary with Orchard End. Planning permission was refused because the combination of the side extensions height, depth and close location to the boundary of the site would have had a dominating and oppressive effect upon the residential amenities of Orchard End.This new application has been modified to address this reason for refusal; the side extension has been sited one metre off the boundary and now has a hipped end rather than a half hipped gable end. These amendments to the original scheme are satisfactory, as they overcome previous concerns. I therefore support this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. CD8O (Restrictions on permitted development) – (INSERT east).

Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. CD9G (Materials) – (INSERT extension)Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and to maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1(i), (ii), (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1841/P NORTHIAM HIGHFIELDS, MAIN STREETDEMOLITION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF FRONT PORCH. REPLACEMENT OF PATIO DOORS TO FRONT WITH SMALLER WINDOWS TO MATCH. BRICKING UP OF THE LARGE WINDOW IN WESTERN ELEVATION. CREATION OF NEW DRIVEWAY TO HIGHFIELDS AND FOUR SMALL DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND A NEW CAR BARN TO SERVE HIGHFIELDS INCLUSIVE OF NEW LANDSCAPING.Wealden Limited


SITE The site lies within the village of Northiam on the north side of Main Street. Highfields is a red brick detached house in grounds of about 0.32 hectares. It is largely hidden from public view by large trees and a substantial hedge along the road frontage. The site slopes gently down towards the road with the majority of the development site comprising lawn.

HISTORYRR/78/2195 Outline: House and garage – Approved Conditional.RR/91/0429/P Outline: Erection of house with garage – Approved Conditional.

31


RR/2008/568/P Demolition of rear single-storey extension and partial demolition of front porch to Highfields including replacement of existing front patio doors on front elevation with smaller windows to match existing and the bricking up of the large window in the western elevation. The creation of new driveway to serve Highfields and four detached houses with associated parking, and a new car barn to serve Highfields inclusive of new landscaping to close off existing access – Refused.

RR/2008/1843/P Demolition of single storey extension and partial demolition of front porch. Replacement of patio doors to front with smaller windows to match. Bricking up of the large window in western elevation. Creation of new driveway to Highfields and two detached houses with associated parking and a new car barn to serve Highfields inclusive of new landscaping – Not Yet Determined.

PROPOSAL The scheme involves developing the main part of the garden of Highfields to provide four detached houses and a detached triple car barn. A central willow tree is to be removed. Highfields itself will be separated from the main site and be left on a smaller plot. An existing single storey extension to the side and rear of the existing house will be removed. The whole development including Highfields will be served by a new relocated access to Main Street about 10 metres west of its existing position.The scheme shows four 3-bedroomed houses with single integral garages. In addition a detached double car barn will be provided for Highfields on the position of the existing drive at the front of the house. Where the existing extension to Highfields is to be removed the walls will be made good and some other minor external changes are proposed. The application is accompanied by a Planning Design and Access Statement which explains the concept of the development and its relationship to the village, and an arboricultural report.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- To be reported. Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies both within the Development Boundary of Northiam and the Northiam Conservation Area. The Development Boundary is broadly drawn at this point to include all of Highfields and some of the adjoining field which falls within the much larger Blue Cross Animal Centre. Within the boundary there is a general presumption in favour of development and indeed a single dwelling has been accepted on the site previously (though not built).Development within the Conservation Area is required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.I determine the main issues to be: The design and layout of the houses in relation to the conservation area, to each

other and to ‘Highfields’. Access/highway issues. Impact on the trees within the site and any effect of the removal of the trees on

the character of the Conservation Area.A similar scheme to provide four larger detached houses was reported to the Planning Committee on 17 April 2008. Planning permission was refused because insufficient

32

regard was paid to the trees and hedge line on the Main Street frontage, which were considered a significant feature of constraint upon developing the site. In addition the position of the house on Plot 4 would have had an overbearing effect on the private rear garden area of Highfields. This new application has been modified to address these reasons for refusal; the size of the dwellings has been reduced and their positions within the site have been revised.

Design and Layout The four houses are positioned to the west of Highfields. They are placed conventionally in two facing pairs. Considered on their own the houses have adequate amenity space and the distances between them are acceptable.While accepting that Highfields is part of the development I am concerned that the revised layout still pays insufficient regard to the existing house and Plots 2 and 4 will impact quite considerably on Highfields simply by reason of their height, bulk and position.Plot 2 obliquely faces Highfields with a separation of only 7.5 metres, while Plot 4 is set back behind Highfields (to its west side), such that the rear garden of the existing property will be faced by a large flank wall along part of its boundary.In terms of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area, there would be no great purpose served by retaining the garden (in itself) and if the existing hedgerow and trees on the road frontage are retained the buildings would be largely hidden from public view.The designs are acceptable and the pallet of materials suggested takes some reference from the village, which is, however, quite mixed in style and character.Should it not be possible to retain the front hedge, or if the trees were removed in the future, the rear elevations of Plots 1 and 2 would address Main Street. As before there is an argument for adding some more interest to these elevations if permission is granted.

Access and highway issuesThe scheme involves replacing the very narrow drive with poor visibility, with a new access to the west. This will involve excavating through an existing embankment on the road frontage and the removal of some vegetation and then the provision of a 5.5 metre wide road including timber Kriblock retaining walls around the widened access. The plans show the possibility of providing 45m x 2m sightlines without disruption of the front hedge line other than trimming the overgrown vegetation from the footway.Highway comments have yet to be received, however, there was no objection previously.

Tree issuesThe frontage trees on this site are important to the landscape of the area and character of the Northiam Conservation Area. There are two main considerations:(i) Layout of the housesThe lime trees in particular are up to 18 metres in height and to the south of the properties the houses on Plots 1 and 2 are approximately 16 metres from the trees. Despite the revised position of the houses I still consider that the trees will dominate the buildings and lead to concerns about safety and requests to fell or heavily prune the trees. I am concerned therefore that the siting of the properties could prejudice the long term protection of the frontage trees and that the loss of these trees would be unacceptable because of the impact on the amenity and character of the Northiam Conservation Area.

33

(ii) AccessThe construction of the access will result in changes in levels around the trees and result in unacceptable incursions into the root protection areas (RPA) of the yew tree to the right of the access which is shown to be retained on the submitted plans. The RPA for the yew is 254.5 sq.m. and disturbance is likely to be within 4m of the wall leading to a very restricted RPA which would be likely to threaten the long term wellbeing of the tree. The RPA is already restricted by the presence of the existing access to the east of the yew tree.

ConclusionsWhile I am satisfied that the site has potential for some residential development I am concerned that this revised proposal for the provision of four houses still pays insufficient regard to the constraints of the site and results in an overdevelopment with a resulting poor and cramped layout. In this respect the layout would create a poor level of amenity for the houses on Plots 1 and 2 overshadowed by trees, and for Highfields which will be adversely affected by the house on Plots 2 and 4. In the circumstances I consider that the scheme for four new dwellings should be rejected.While I also have some concern over the incursion through the bank and hedge line which will result in a change to a part of the existing, very enclosed frontage, and a yew tree may ultimately be lost I do not consider this aspect alone to be a reason for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The proposed layout for four houses pays insufficient regard to the trees and

hedge line on the Main Street frontage which are a significant feature of and constraint upon developing this site. As a result, Plots 1 and 2 will have rear gardens as well as facing windows that will be significantly overshadowed at most times. In addition the size of the trees will cause apprehension as well as nuisance to future occupiers. Together this will result in continual pressure to prune or even fell the main trees. As such the scheme does not accord with the advice in Section 6.3 of BS5837: Trees – Trees in relation to construction. Additionally the development in this manner would lead to a poor level of amenity for future occupiers of Plots 1 and 2 contrary to Policy GD1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan, and be detrimental to the character of the conservation area if the preserved trees are continually pruned or even felled contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(vi)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The position of the houses on Plots 2 and 4 pay insufficient regard to ‘Highfields’ and, by reason of their height, bulk and position relative to the front and rear of the existing house, will result in an overbearing effect on the private rear garden area of ‘Highfields’ from Plot 4 and an intrusive relationship to the front elevation of ‘Highfields’ from Plot 2. As such the scheme would be contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


34


RR/2008/1843/P NORTHIAM HIGHFIELDS, MAIN STREETDEMOLITION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF FRONT PORCH. REPLACEMENT OF PATIO DOORS TO FRONT WITH SMALLER WINDOWS TO MATCH. BRICKING UP OF THE LARGE WINDOW IN WESTERN ELEVATION. CREATION OF NEW DRIVEWAY TO HIGHFIELDS AND TWO DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND A NEW CAR BARN TO SERVE HIGHFIELDS INCLUSIVE OF NEW LANDSCAPING.Wealden Limited


SITE The site lies within the village of Northiam on the north side of Main Street. Highfields is a red brick detached house in grounds of about 0.32 hectares. It is largely hidden from public view by large trees and a substantial hedge along the road frontage. The site slopes gently down towards the road with the majority of the development site comprising lawn.

HISTORYRR/78/2195 Outline: House and garage – Approved conditional.RR/91/0429/P Outline: Erection of house with garage – Approved conditional.RR/2008/568/P Demolition of rear single-storey extension and partial demolition of

front porch to Highfields including replacement of existing front patio doors on front elevation with smaller windows to match existing and the bricking up of the large window in the western elevation. The creation of new driveway to serve Highfields and four detached houses with associated parking, and a new car barn to serve Highfields inclusive of new landscaping to close off existing access – Refused.

RR/2008/1841/P Demolition of single storey extension and partial demolition of front porch. Replacement of patio doors to front with smaller windows to match. Bricking up of the large window in western elevation. Creation of new driveway to Highfields and four small detached houses with associated parking and a new car barn to serve Highfields inclusive of new landscaping – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL The scheme involves developing the main part of the garden of Highfields to provide two detached houses. A central willow tree is to be removed. Highfields itself will be separated from the main site and be left on a smaller plot. An existing single storey extension to the side and rear of the existing house will be removed. The whole development including Highfields will be served by a new relocated access to Main Street about 10 metres west of its existing position.The scheme shows two 4-bedroomed houses with detached double garages. In addition a detached double car barn will be provided for Highfields on the position of the existing drive at the front of the house. Where the existing extension to Highfields is to be removed the walls will be made good and some other minor external changes are proposed. The application is accompanied by a Planning Design and Access Statement which explains the concept of the development and its relationship to the village, and an arboricultural report.

35

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- To be reported. Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies both within the Development Boundary of Northiam and the Northiam Conservation Area. The Development Boundary is broadly drawn at this point to include all of Highfields and some of the adjoining field which falls within the much larger Blue Cross Animal Centre. Within the boundary there is a general presumption in favour of development and indeed a single dwelling has been accepted on the site previously (though not built).Development within the Conservation Area is required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.I determine the main issues to be: The design and layout of the houses in relation to the conservation area, to each

other and to ‘Highfields’. Access/highway issues. Impact on the trees within the site and any effect of the removal of the trees on

the character of the Conservation Area.A scheme to provide four detached houses was reported to the Planning Committee on 17 April 2008. Planning permission was refused because insufficient regard was paid to the trees and hedge line on the Main Street frontage, which were considered a significant feature of constraint upon developing the site. In addition the position of the house on Plot 4 would have had an overbearing effect on the private rear garden area of Highfields. This new application has been made to address these reasons for refusal; two dwellings are now proposed, although at the same time a scheme with four smaller detached houses has also been submitted and also appears on this agenda.

Design and Layout The two houses are positioned to the west of Highfields in a conventional facing pair. Considered with Highfields as part of the development I am satisfied that there is adequate amenity space and the distances between the three dwellings. In terms of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area, there would be no great purpose served by retaining the garden (in itself) and if the existing hedgerow and trees on the road frontage are retained the buildings would be largely hidden from public view.In principle the designs are acceptable and the pallet of materials suggested takes some reference from the village, which is quite mixed in style and character. However, the box fascias and barge boards are not acceptable and would need to be deleted or replaced with simple tile verges. In addition the use of Redland Heathland concrete roof tiles proposed is inappropriate in the conservation area and would need to be replaced with hand-made clay tiles.

Access and highway issuesThe scheme involves replacing the very narrow drive with poor visibility, with a new access to the west. This will involve excavating through an existing embankment on the road frontage and the removal of some vegetation and then the provision of a 5.5 metre wide road including timber Kriblock retaining walls around the widened access. The plans show the possibility of providing 45m x 2m sightlines without disruption of the front hedge line other than trimming the overgrown vegetation from the footway.

36

Highway comments have yet to be received, however, there was no objection previously.

Tree issuesThe frontage trees on this site are important to the landscape of the area and character of the Northiam Conservation Area. There are two main considerations:(i) Layout of the housesThe lime trees on the Main Street frontage are up to 18 metres in height and are a significant feature of constraint upon developing this site. However, the house on Plot 1 is approximately 16.5 metres from the trees and has a large amount of amenity space to the rear compared to the previous proposal; and the other scheme on this agenda which has two houses with much smaller gardens beneath the trees, while some of the garden may at times be in shadow it is of sufficient size to provide a good amenity for the house.

(ii) AccessThe construction of the access will result in changes in levels around the trees and result in unacceptable incursions into the root protection areas (RPA) of the yew tree to the right of the access which is shown to be retained on the submitted plans. The RPA for the yew is 254.5 sq.m. and disturbance is likely to be within 4m of the wall leading to a very restricted RPA which would be likely to threaten the long term wellbeing of the tree. The RPA is already restricted by the presence of the existing access to the east of the yew tree.

Conclusions I am satisfied that this revised proposal for the provision of two houses will result in an acceptable form of development that will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties. While I have some concern over the incursion through the bank and hedge line which will result in a change to a part of the existing, very enclosed frontage, and a yew tree may ultimately be lost I do not consider this aspect alone to be a reason for refusal.In the circumstances I consider that the scheme for two new dwellings should be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD, DELETION/REPLACEMENT OF BOX FASCIAS AND BARGE BOARDS & ALTERNATIVE ROOF TILE)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. Highway conditions to be reported.3. CD4P (Existing trees which are to be retained) – Under (c) delete “the approved

plans” and INSERT “BS 5837”.Reason: INSERT (b. to safeguard the characteristics of the locality & c. to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the health and safety of the trees) in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv), (v), (vi) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f), (j), (m) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. CD6B (Drainage).5. The detached garages and detached car barn hereby approved shall be used for

the garaging of private vehicles and domestic and garden storage only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)

37

Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to protect the amenities of the local area, in accordance with Policies GD1 (i), (ii), (iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls, structures of any kind, nor any extension to the house shall be erected within the rear garden of the dwelling-house hereby approved on Plot 1.Reason: To ensure that the health and safety of the trees on the Main Street frontage are not prejudiced in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv), (v), (vi) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f), (j), (m) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. CD9H (Materials) – (INSERT A samples) & (INSERT B buildings).Reason: To ensure a standard of development that has proper regard to the character of the conservation area having regard to Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan

8. No development shall take place until full sections of the new access road, its means of construction and the surfacing of the access road and all driveways and paths have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter no works shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure a standard of development that has proper regard to the character of the conservation area having regard to Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan

Notes:1. ND4 (Adherence to approved plans/conditions).2. The granting of planning permission does not authorise the felling, lopping or

topping of trees within the site, unless indicated to be removed on the approved plans.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed dwellings are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy GD1 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


38


RR/2007/909/O BODIAM PARK FARM, JUNCTION ROADUSE OF MAIN SITE AS A TOURING CARAVAN/CAMPING SITE (130 PITCHES) THROUGHOUT SEASON; USE OF CENTRAL AREAS AND ROADWAY AS SITE ACCESS; USE OF CENTRAL AREAS FOR ANCILLARY GAMES/ RECREATION; USE OF CENTRAL AREAS AND MAIN SITE FOR VISITORS CAR PARKING; USE BY VISITORS OF SANITARY BLOCK, ELECTRICITY AND WATER SUPPLY WITHIN CENTRAL AREA AND MAIN SITE: AS FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE, DEFINITIONS AND AMENDED SITE PLAN - PLAN 1A CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATIONMr R Bailey

Statutory 8 week date: 18 May 2008

This site has been included on the Committee site inspection list for 15 July 2008.

This application has been amended at the request of the applicant’s agent. It was deferred at your last meeting to allow the revised application to be re-advertised. Re-consultations have also been carried out with the Parish Council and with the Legal Services Manager.

Members should also note that a second application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) has recently been submitted (RR/2008/1568/O). This application contains further revisions to the LDC being applied for and is also to be reported to this Planning Committee meeting.

Dealing with the application now before you (RR/2007/909/O). The specific title for the LDC being applied for is set out in full in the applicant’s schedule contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008. The description given to this application is intended as a summary of that schedule for procedural reasons.

SITE This existing seasonal tent and touring caravan site is located to the western side of Junction Road.

HISTORYRR/77/1204 Touring caravan site – Approved.RR/2003/920/P Placement of a mobile home for site manager during season only

(1 March – 31 October) – Refused.RR/2003/2594/P To site a mobile home for site manager during the summer season

(1 March – 31 October) – Approved – (Time limited permission – 3 years)

RR/2007/2318/P Discharge of condition 3 imposed upon planning permission RR/2003/2594/P for siting of a mobile home for a site warden during the summer season – (refers to temporary permission) – Approved

Other planning permissions on this site relate to the winter storage of caravans in farm buildings.

PROPOSAL This is not a planning application but an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The Certificate is sought on the grounds that the area

39

edged in red on the submitted plan has been used for more than 10 years from the date of the application and is therefore lawful. The 10 years refers to the requisite time period under the LDC applications procedure. Evidence in support of the proposal comprises statutory declarations from the owner (and applicant), caravan owners that have used the site, and a hot air balloonist that has been taking private and commercial flights over the area since 1989. Additional documents include photographs, letters, financial information and a site usage summary. The application site covers three fields described in the application as the Right Field (hatched green on the plan), the Left Field (hatched in purple), and the Middle Field (un-hatched).The original planning permission for Park Farm (RR/77/1204) included the Right Field and Middle Field. Conditions on the application included the following:(i) The total number of caravans and tents to be accommodated on the site at any

one time shall not exceed 50(ii) No caravans or tents shall be accommodated within the area hatched green on

the site plan (the Right Field)(iii) No individual caravan or tent shall remain on the site for more than 21

consecutive nightsThe application seeks a Certificate for the use of these areas of land as a camping and caravan site in breach of these conditions.The LDC application site includes a third area – described as the Left Field. This field falls outside the site area covered by planning permission RR/77/1204. The three areas (Right Field, Left Field and Middle Field) are shown on the amended plan coloured red. The central areas are shown hatched. The revised application description refers to ‘Main Site’ and defines this as the area shown in red excluding the central (hatched) areas. In brief, the amended application seeks a LDC for 130 pitches on the ‘Main Site’ throughout the season. In addition to this it seeks a LDC for the use of the central areas (hatched) for access, parking, sports and recreation.The application as originally submitted, also sought a Certificate for what was described as “ancillary or incidental uses”. This has now been deleted from the proposal and the description has been amended accordingly.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- (Original comments - dated 1 May 2007) - “The Parish Council has no information that would contradict the statements made by Mr Bailey. However, of late there have been annual 2 day concerts with very loudly amplified music playing up to approximately 4.00a.m. These have caused disturbance and nuisance to residents as far away as Robertsbridge and Newenden.The Council requests that they be stopped. If this is not possible, it is requested that they be restricted to reasonable hours and noise volume. It has been brought to the Council’s attention that there are under-aged and un-supervised people riding quad-bikes and mini motor bikes on site, and bringing them onto public land.The Council would be content for continuation of use, providing it allows quiet enjoyment to other residents and occupants of the Rother Valley and surrounding villages.”The Parish Council has been invited to comment further on the revised application. Any additional comments will be reported.Environment Agency:- Objects to the proposal on flood risk grounds (see website for full text of letter).Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objection.Planning Notice:- A letter from Kent County Council (summarised) states that Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Bronze Expedition events have been organised at the campsite

40

since 1998. These have numbered about seven events a year and it is estimated that between 80 and 100 young people benefit from using this campsite annually.Two site notices have been put in place (one relating to this application and one relation to the newer application). A number of the representations received contain one or the other planning reference numbers although the comments appertain equally to both applications. I am therefore reporting all representations, both for and against, in each of your planning reports.9 letters of support (including from the proprietors of The Castle Inn, The Curlew, Park Farm Butchers and other local businesses). These state that local businesses have benefited from the additional custom of those using the caravan/camping site: It provides the opportunity for a holiday for those users of the site for modest

expenditure There have been no highway problems The site is isolated and well screened We have experienced no loss of amenity as a consequence of activity on the site20 letters of objection: Loud music, particularly at weekends, causing a nuisance Music ‘raves’ with hundreds of people arriving over weekends with excessive

noise continuing unabated over three days and nights Loud PA equipment and live bands playing until 4am Trespass onto adjoining land, shooting air guns, and breaking tree branches for

camp fires Inappropriate in the AONB Sleepless nights due to noise disturbance; cannot have the windows open on hot

summer evenings Traffic problem Smoke from camp fires Campers have defecated in the woods and elsewhere (inadequate provision of

toilet facilities) Must be in breach of touring site licence Campers have broken fences Only beneficiary is the site owner Stealing and wanton destruction of our farm crops (apples) which is our main

source of income (The Moat Farm) Dogs worrying sheep and horses Mr Bailey has been asked by local residents to deal with matters but has done

nothing Gates left open have resulted in stock escaping Litter Situation has arising because of lack of monitoring by Rother over a period of at

least 10 years Activity is totally unacceptable and in contravention of policies contained in the

Local Plan Music can be heard by the occupiers of houses 2 km plus away from the site It (the camp site) has significantly increased as the number of caravans and

camp pitches have grown over the years. Especially in the last few years. This year was the worst ever.

A letter form Shoosmiths Solicitors on behalf of the occupiers of New House Farm contains the following summary:“This is clearly a difficult application to determine as there is existing case law both in support of and in opposition to the principle of a seasonal use. We do not believe that a clear case for this Certificate has been made in terms of either, the evidence submitted,

41

or the point of law at issue. However, if the Council is convinced by the case of Webber that a seasonal use is possible, and it is minded to grant a Certificate, then it must in any event consider the deficiencies in the evidence that has been provided in support of the application. The evidence simply does not support the level of use claimed.We have seen the Committee Report that was prepared in connection with the Applicant’s earlier application (RR/2007/909/O). We believe that the Council’s suggested approach for a Certificate to be issued limiting the total number of pitches to 100 (as a combined total for the Site for tents and caravans) is a sensible one, and far more in keeping with the evidence that has been put forward in support of this application than the figures claimed in the Use Document.We believe however that a Certificate granted allowing in excess of 100 pitches could not be properly supported by the evidence that has been put forward, and if relying on Webber the Council must bear in mind that whilst a ‘seasonal use’ is established in that case, the use throughout the season in question should in itself be consistent.”All letters can be viewed in full on application websites RR/2007/909/O and RR/2008/1568/P.

SUMMARY It is clear from the letters of objection that have been received that activity on this site has caused nuisance to local residents. Members are, however, reminded that this is an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use and, unlike a planning application, it cannot be determined on its planning merits or demerits. Equally, this applies to the letters of support, particularly from local businesses. The application has to be determined on the basis of the evidence available and in accordance with the LDC applications procedure.

For a LDC to be awarded, it must be in respect of an unlawful activity against which the local planning authority could have taken enforcement action and furthermore, the breach must have been continuous. In legal terms what constituted “continuous” is subject to interpretation based, largely, upon two previous legal cases each with different outcomes: (Thurrock BC v SoS for the Environment and another [2002] and Webber v Ministry of Housing and Local Govt. [1968]). Both cases relate to seasonal uses. The ‘Thurrock’ case established that a breach was not continuous in that during the ‘closed season’ it was interrupted and stopped. The ‘Webber’ case established that any closed season could not be taken into account in that when no unlawful activity was taking place it could not be enforced against i.e. the breach had to be continuous only during the ‘open season’.

Evidence from the applicant’s Counsel, this Council’s Legal Services Manager and the letter from Shoosmiths Solicitors make more detailed references to these cases and Members may wish to view these documents in full on the websites.

Counsel’s opinion relies on the decision in ‘Webber’: and taking this to be appropriate, it is clear that (i) the extent of the breaches have not been continuous throughout the season; and (ii) the application seeks a LDC for activities during the season that could not have been enforced against (e.g. the use of the middle sections of the fields by campers to gain access to pitches on the edges of the field does not constitute an unauthorised change of use of land and enforcement action could not have been taken).

At your May meeting, I recommended that following the Legal Services Manager’s advice a LDC should be issued, but not to the extent being claimed in the application

42

(Section 191(4) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 specifically authorises a local planning authority to grant a Certificate to such an extent as it is satisfied). It was envisaged that such a Certificate could be issued, however this would need to address fundamental issues about intensity (numbers) and geographical extent (location of pitches) and this would have to be specified in any Certificate issued.

Clearly, this is one option open to Members. In the event that such a certificate is issued, it would still be necessary to pass this matter to Planning Enforcement to address breaches of planning control that are continuing.

The amended application has not served to clarify matters and I am satisfied that a case for a Certificate for the uses being applied for has not been demonstrated. In the circumstances, it is considered that refusing the application may be the appropriate course of action. In such an event, again, the matter would have to be referred to Planning Enforcement and additionally, there would be the likelihood of an appeal being lodged. It is clear that this application raises many complex legal issues and in addition to the above, Members may wish to give consideration to obtaining their own legal opinion from Counsel.

On a final matter, particular concerns for local residents are noise disturbance, trespass and other disruption that appears to be a consequence of music festivals that appear to have commenced in recent years. Whilst it remains the case that this LDC application cannot be considered on its planning merits, I am investigating whether control cannot be exercised under other (non-planning) legislation. In this respect, I have written to the Head of Environmental Health and requested information on whether any complaints may constitute a statutory noise nuisance, breaches to the tent/caravan site licence, and whether the festivals have been licensed under a Temporary Events Notice.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT)


RR/2008/1568/O BODIAM PARK FARMLAWFUL USE OF LAND AS TOURING CARAVAN AND CAMPING SITE WITH VARIATIONS TO MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBERS OF PITCHES AT SPECIFIED TIMES DURING THE YEAR AS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION. USE OF CENTRAL AREAS AND MAIN SITE FOR ANCILLARY GAMES/RECREATION, VISITOR PARKING, AND ACCESS. USE BY VISITORS OF SANITARY BLOCK, ELECTRICITY AND WATER SUPPLY WITHIN CENTRAL AREAS AND MAIN SITE: AS FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE AND DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION.Mr R Bailey


The site has been included on your list of Committee site inspections for 15 July 2008.43

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2007909o

This is a second application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) that has been submitted for this site. The previous application (RR/2007/909/O) is also to be reported to this Planning Committee meeting.

Dealing with the application now before you (RR/2008/1568/O). The specific title for the LDC being applied for is set out in full in the applicant’s schedule contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008. The description given to this application is intended as a summary of that schedule for procedural reasons.

SITE This existing seasonal tent and touring caravan site is located to the western side of Junction Road.

HISTORYRR/77/1204 Touring caravan site – Approved.RR/2003/920/P Placement of a mobile home for site manager during season only

(1 March – 31 October) – Refused.RR/2003/2594/P To site a mobile home for site manager during the summer season

(1 March – 31 October) – Approved – (Time limited permission – 3 years)

RR/2007/2318/P Discharge of condition 3 imposed upon planning permission RR/2003/2594/P for siting of a mobile home for a site warden during the summer season – (refers to temporary permission) – Approved

Other planning permissions on this site relate to the winter storage of caravans in farm buildings.

PROPOSAL This is not a planning application but an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The Certificate is sought on the grounds that the area edged in red on the submitted plan has been used for more than 10 years from the date of the application and is therefore lawful. The 10 years refers to the requisite time period under the LDC applications procedure. Evidence in support of the proposal comprises a new statutory declaration from the owner (and applicant). Additional documents include photographs, letters and a site usage summary. The application site covers three fields described in the application as the Right Field, the Left Field, and the Middle Field.The original planning permission for Park Farm (RR/77/1204) included the Right Field and Middle Field. Conditions on the application included the following:(i) The total number of caravans and tents to be accommodated on the site at any

one time shall not exceed 50(ii) No caravans or tents shall be accommodated within the area hatched green on

the site plan (the Right Field)(iii) No individual caravan or tent shall remain on the site for more than 21

consecutive nightsThe application seeks a Certificate for the use of these areas of land as a camping and caravan site in breach of these conditions.The LDC application site includes a third area – described as the Left Field. This field falls outside the site area covered by planning permission RR/77/1204. The three areas (Right Field, Left Field and Middle Field) are shown on the application plan coloured red. The central areas are shown hatched. The application description refers to ‘Main Site’ and defines this as the area shown in red excluding the central (hatched)

44

areas. In brief: the application seeks a LDC for 130 pitches on the ‘Main Site’ throughout the season. In addition to this it seeks a LDC for a greater (specified) number of pitches during several (listed) peak periods during the summer season. The application also seeks a LDC for the use of the central areas (hatched) for access, parking and outdoor sports and recreation.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Two site notices have been put in place (one relating to this application and one relation to the previous application RR/2007/909/O). A number of the representations received contain one or the other planning reference numbers although the comments appertain equally to both applications. I am therefore reporting all representations, both for and against, in each of your planning reports.9 letters of support (including from the proprietors of The Castle Inn, The Curlew, Park Farm Butchers and other local businesses). These state that local businesses have benefited from the additional custom of those using the caravan/camping site: It provides the opportunity for a holiday for those users of the site for modest

expenditure There have been no highway problems The site is isolated and well screened We have experienced no loss of amenity as a consequence of activity on the site20 letters of objection: Loud music, particularly at weekends, causing a nuisance Music ‘raves’ with hundreds of people arriving over weekends with excessive

noise continuing unabated over three days and nights Loud PA equipment and live bands playing until 4am Trespass onto adjoining land, shooting air guns, and breaking tree branches for

camp fires Inappropriate in the AONB Sleepless nights due to noise disturbance; cannot have the windows open on hot

summer evenings Traffic problem Smoke from camp fires Campers have defecated in the woods and elsewhere (inadequate provision of

toilet facilities) Must be in breach of touring site licence Campers have broken fences Only beneficiary is the site owner Stealing and wanton destruction of our farm crops (apples) which is our main

source of income (The Moat Farm) Dogs worrying sheep and horses Mr Bailey has been asked by local residents to deal with matters but has done

nothing Gates left open have resulted in stock escaping Litter Situation has arising because of lack of monitoring by Rother over a period of at

least 10 years Activity is totally unacceptable and in contravention of policies contained in the

Local Plan Music can be heard by the occupiers of houses 2 km plus away from the site

45

It (the camp site) has significantly increased as the number of caravans and camp pitches have grown over the years. Especially in the last few years. This year was the worst ever.

A letter form Shoosmiths Solicitors on behalf of the occupiers of New House Farm contains the following summary:“This is clearly a difficult application to determine as there is existing case law both in support of and in opposition to the principle of a seasonal use. We do not believe that a clear case for this Certificate has been made in terms of either, the evidence submitted, or the point of law at issue. However, if the Council is convinced by the case of Webber that a seasonal use is possible, and it is minded to grant a Certificate, then it must in any event consider the deficiencies in the evidence that has been provided in support of the application. The evidence simply does not support the level of use claimed.We have seen the Committee Report that was prepared in connection with the Applicant’s earlier application (RR/2007/909/O). We believe that the Council’s suggested approach for a Certificate to be issued limiting the total number of pitches to 100 (as a combined total for the Site for tents and caravans) is a sensible one, and far more in keeping with the evidence that has been put forward in support of this application than the figures claimed in the Use Document.We believe however that a Certificate granted allowing in excess of 100 pitches could not be properly supported by the evidence that has been put forward, and if relying on Webber the Council must bear in mind that whilst a ‘seasonal use’ is established in that case, the use throughout the season in question should in itself be consistent.”All letters can be viewed in full on application websites RR/2007/909/O and RR/2008/1568/P.

SUMMARY This application differs principally from RR/2007/909/O in that it breaks-up the site area geographically into ‘edges of fields’ and ‘middle of fields’ and broadly, claims a camping/caravan use on the edges of the field and other uses (parking, access recreation) in the middle. The amendments are possibly in response to the views the local planning authority has previously expressed, that the evidence of unauthorised camping/caravan activity over the years seems to indicate localised use at the field margins only. Furthermore, this application seeks a LDC for specific numbers of pitches at specific peak times during the summer seasons. Whilst this application has to be considered separately with direct reference to the information available, the issues in respect of the two applications are essentially the same. It is clear from the letters of objection that have been received that activity on this site has caused nuisance to local residents. Members are, however, reminded that this is an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use and, unlike a planning application, it cannot be determined on its planning merits or demerits. Equally, this applies to the letters of support, particularly from local businesses. The application has to be determined on the basis of the evidence available and in accordance with the LDC applications procedure.For a LDC to be awarded, it must be in respect of an unlawful activity against which the local planning authority could have taken enforcement action and furthermore, the breach must have been continuous. It is considered that the extent of the breaches have not been continuous throughout the season and rather, they are set out as a series of ‘spikes’ during short periods when the number of pitches was claimed to be considerably high. Secondly, the application seeks a LDC for activities during the season that could not have been enforced against (e.g. the use of the middle sections of the fields by campers to gain access to pitches on the edges of the field does not constitute an unauthorised change of use of land and enforcement action could not have been taken).

46

The amended application has not served to clarify matters and I am satisfied that a case for a Certificate for the uses being applied for has not been demonstrated. In the circumstances, it is considered that refusing the application may be the appropriate course of action. In such an event the matter would have to be referred to Planning Enforcement. It is clear that this application raises many complex legal issues and in addition to the above, Members may wish to give consideration to obtaining their own legal opinion from Counsel.On a final matter, particular concerns for local residents are noise disturbance, trespass and other disruption that appears to be a consequence of music festivals that appear to have commenced in recent years. Whilst it remains the case that this LDC application cannot be considered on its planning merits, I am investigating whether control cannot be exercised under other (non-planning) legislation. In this respect, I have written to the Head of Environmental Health and requested information on whether any complaints may constitute a statutory noise nuisance, breaches to the tent/caravan site licence, and whether the festivals have been licensed under a Temporary Events Notice.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT)


RR/2008/1634/P WESTFIELD GOULDS DRIVE – LAND AT, MOOR LANEPROVISION OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 15 3 AND 4 BEDROOM DETACHED AND SEMI DETACHED PRIVATE HOUSES AND 9 AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS, ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROAD, FOOTPATHS, PARKING AREAS, BIN AND RE-CYCLING STORES/ CYCLE STORE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.Park Lane Homes (SE) Ltd


This application has been added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The site comprises an area of grassland, roughly triangular in shape, on the edge of Westfield about 0.5 hectares in area. The site is served from a new road currently named as Goulds Drive and bordered on its east side by new houses in this cul-de-sac and four detached houses fronting Moor Lane. The field is largely open with hedges on the remaining three sides. On its western side the side is bordered by an open tract of land once safeguarded for the (now abandoned) Westfield bypass. Beyond this area are properties in Greenacres.

HISTORYThe site, with other adjoining parcels of land, is allocated for residential purposes in the adopted Local Plan. The history of this and the other adjoining parcels of land is as follows:

Fronting Moor Lane (now built)RR/97/2144/P Outline: four dwellings – GrantedRR/98/904/P Four dwellings – Approved

47

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20081568o

Goulds Drive (now built)RR/2004/2101/P 6 semi detached dwellings – Granted

South of Moor View Cottages (still vacant)RR/2004/155/P Outline: 9 houses – Refused – Appeal DismissedRR/2006/132/P Outline: 10 houses – Withdrawn

Application siteRR/2006/1968/P 14 dwellings – Refused

PROPOSAL The scheme comprises a cul-de-sac development with two spur roads. The principal road into the site serves 15 two storey private houses with some of these properties extended into the roof area. There are 7 detached and four pairs of semi-detached houses: a mixture of three and four bedroom houses.From the secondary spur road are served two blocks containing the affordable units. The larger of the two blocks is on three floors with the top floor in the roof space. This building contains six units. The second two storey block contains a further three units. This part of the scheme provides 1 x 4 bedroom house, 1 x 3 bedroom flat, 3 x 2 bedroom flats, 4 x 1 bedroom flats.

The application is accompanied by:– a Design and Access Statement– a Hedgerow Assessment– a Badger Report– a Drainage Statement– an Ecological Survey– a Reptile Survey and Mitigation Method Statement– a Planning Statement incorporating a Site Waste Management Plan

The applicant’s planning statement includes the following:“3.2 The basis of the layout is to provide a traditional street pattern with houses on

either side of the road, with the affordable flats (units 16-21) comprising a separate building at the site entrance to provide a feature and focal point for the site.

3.3 The edge of village feel and character has been reinforced by setting the dwellings behind a framework of hedgerows, which avoids the hard edges of more typical urban and suburban housing design. This approach will provide a green and softer setting for the development. Combined with this will be considerable areas of soft landscaping shown indicatively on the submitted layout drawing. All houses will have front and rear gardens of differing shapes and sizes that adds a further element of variety. Parking and garages are provided at 2 spaces per dwelling to meet the District Council’s parking standards. The flats have their own landscaped courtyard parking at 1.3 spaces per flat to accord with the District Council’s requirements.

3.4 The design of the individual houses has been undertaken to reflect local trends and patterns of development and has aimed to introduce variety and interest to create a scheme that is both appropriate to the site and surroundings and is comfortable in its setting.

3.5 Care has been taken to utilise existing site vegetation as an integral part of the scheme composition particularly where this will provide valuable green screening to boundaries. New soft landscaping is proposed within and around the site to

48

enhance the quality of the development and to help ensure that it integrates with both the site’s existing developed framework and the more open and rural areas to the south.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No objection, but point out that the name ‘Gould Close’ is still an unresolved issue to be resolved before more houses are included at this address.Highway Authority:- Detailed comments on conditions and amendments required to the layout also require £39,870 LSAIC contribution to fund and promote and improve local sustainable transport routes. Comment on possible footpath link referred to in Local Plan and seek increased pedestrian access in this respect.Environment Agency:- No objection.Southern Water:- To be reported.Sussex Police:- To be reported.Natural England:- “Natural England are satisfied that there was no evidence of badgers on the site and that the site supports a small population of reptiles. We are satisfied with the mitigation proposals for reptiles but would like to point out that it is not good practice to clear a site of protected species prior to determination of the planning application.”Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Recommend contaminated land report in view of past use of adjoining land as private bus garage.Director of Services – Amenities:- To be reported.Director of Services – Housing:- (summary) – 9.6 units would be required: additional 0.6 unit should be achieved by ‘in lieu’ contribution; layout mix and design should accord with requirements of Housing Corporation; “pepper potted” scheme would be preferable to concentration of units..Planning Notice:- 46 objections (in summary) - Intrusion, loss of daylight to neighbouring property from 3 storey block of flats;

any flats should be relocated Flooding from higher ground on application site Loss of privacy to adjoining residents especially from adjoining car park Overlooking – houses should be replaced to prevent overlooking Number of dwellings too high – increased traffic, dangerous exit Barn-style flats out of keeping with the area Harm amenities of adjoining residents No play area provided Impact on local school Waiting list at local nursery/playgroup Sufficient space at Claverham? Down housing project should have priority Surgery full Noise and air pollution from construction traffic Not in keeping with countryside (as claimed) Village road system inadequate Urban sprawl Increased crime Keep Westfield a village Density exceeds Local Plan Application seeks to bypass access and drainage issues Southern boundary does not belong to Park Lane so reinforcement of hedge

should be done within the site before development starts and include a chain link fence to reduce deposition of litter

49

Site of previous coach depot – known drainage issues Over development Westfield in danger of becoming a town Reptile survey at wrong time of year – no amphibian survey – any ponds within

500m? Question extent of publicity and position of site notices Drainage problems on the land; adjoining site has sewerage and manholes to

reduce overflows of raw sewage as a result of blockage in pipe which flows through the development site

Building over main sewer Goulds Drive inadequate to serve site and is unadopted; alternative access

should be used

SUMMARY The site with other adjoining land is identified as a housing site in the adopted Local Plan. Policy VL9 states:“Land off Moor Lane, Westfield, as shown on the Proposals Map, is allocated for housing purposes. Proposals will be permitted where:-(i) at least 15 dwellings are provided, of which 40% are affordable;(ii) footpath link is provided along the western side of the site;(iii) the tree belt hedgerow on the southern boundary is strengthened.”The application is also subject to the other general policies relating to development, particularly GD1 in relation to the character of the area, the position of the site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the impact on adjoining residents and the acceptability of the development for new residents. In addition the affordable housing Policy, HG1, and Policy HG4 apply.As a Local Plan allocation the principle of residential development has been accepted. Goulds Drive already serves housing at the entrance to this land and has been constructed to a standard to serve this site. The allocation in the Local Plan covers a wider area than this application site and it refers to a minimum of 15 dwellings on all the land. However, development at such a low density would not meet current guidelines or make the best use of land. The six new houses on Moor Lane and at the entrance from Goulds Drive have already established a higher density. The matter, however, is not primarily about density but about achieving a development appropriate for the site, particularly taking account of:– The proximity of adjoining properties and the outlook and amenity of local

residents;– The edge of village location of the site; and– The need to achieve requirements (ii) and (iii) of Policy VL9 of the Local Plan.

Members will have an opportunity to visit the site and examine the submitted layout, but this report is presented today to outline my current thoughts on the application. At this stage the particular layout is not one that I am able to support. I set out my concerns below.

The grouping of the affordable housingAlthough contributing 40% of the units on the site the area of the affordable housing occupies only about 26% of the area. Admittedly this is because the units are mainly flats but even so it does concentrate this element of the development and result in the barn style three storey block of flats, which a number of residents argue is both out of character with the village and dominant to adjoining residents. This building is about 10.6 metres high in comparison to the 8.5 metres or 9 metres in height of the various houses. This element of the scheme also results in a large open area of car parking

50

which is not overly attractive and close to the Moor Lane houses. Furthermore the amount of amenity space afforded to the flats is fairly minimal.These matters need to be considered further and I would also wish to see if there is scope to move the three unit affordable block further from the rear garden boundary of the Moor Lane houses which face its flank wall. It is the affordable buildings nearest the existing facing residents in Moor Lane which are the tallest on the site.

The ‘crescent’ of private housingThis element of the scheme occupies about 74% of the site.While in order to achieve the number of affordable units the developers have sought to build higher, in order to maximise the private housing numbers, narrow houses on narrow plots have been used. While the pairs of semi detached houses are comparable to those on the adjoining site, the detached houses are considerably narrower than the adjoining detached houses on Moor Lane.I am not convinced that this will result in a pleasing townscape.I am also particularly concerned that the depth of houses, particularly on Plots 5-9, will result in very short back gardens and I am not persuaded that sufficient space will be left to achieve a meaningful enhancement of the boundary hedge required by Policy VL9(iii).The Local Plan intends that the southern boundary of this site should be strengthened. The planning application does acknowledge this in its Hedgerow Assessment. However it is not reflected in the layout of the proposed development. Gardens which back onto the southern boundary are very short (6m) and with the hedge to the south of the properties shading could be a problem. This could result in pressure to remove the boundary hedge and leave little room for new planting of hedgerow trees in this area. The likelihood of this being a problem could be reduced via an alternative layout that at least ensured a reasonable distance between the southern boundary and dwellings.Generally on landscaping, although the proposal indicates there will be new tree planting, there is no mention of type/species. Given the semi-rural location rich in biodiversity, it would seem appropriate to ensure that new tree/hedge planting is of native species that enhance the local environment, particularly on the site boundaries.Finally, at the end of this cul-de-sac the road ends as if to give the possibility of serving adjoining land. As this is not the intention – and the Highway Authority seek a turning head here – a redesign of this area is needed. This would give a sense of enclosure at the end of the road and improve the quality of the townscape.

Footpath linkThe layout does not address the footpath link required by Policy VL9(ii). The County Highway Authority comment:“I note that in the Rother District Local Plan 2006 that the proposal for this development is permitted subject to fulfilling a number of conditions, in particular the provision of a footpath link along the eastern side of the site. ESCC support this measure as a means of connecting the existing rights of way located along with southern edge of the proposed development and emanating from the end of Fishponds Lane. The plans should be amended to include this link. I would also like to see access made available directly from the proposed development onto the existing footway that runs along its southern boundary, in order to further increase connectivity to the site. Details of the proposed status of this link should also be submitted.”

Main concerns of the residentsA number of the local issues raised by residents, many of whom suggest the scheme is an over development, have been addressed above. However the other dominant

51

themes are drainage issues related to the site, highway safety and capacity and the capability of existing services (especially the surgery and the school) to take further development.Replies are awaited from the drainage authorities but I am not aware of any insurmountable drainage issues. Any permission would be the subject of appropriate conditions.On highway matters, the Highway Authority raise no objections to serving the site from Gould Drive. Moor Lane is suitable to serve the development and visibility splays are acceptable.In relation to services locally, the land has been allocated through the Local Plan process on which the Education Authority and the Primary Care Trust were consultees.

ConclusionAt this stage I do not consider that the layout and form of the development is acceptable and remain to be convinced that 24 units can be provided in a satisfactory manner.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (NEGOTIATION OF AMENDED SCHEME)


RR/2008/1735/P CAMBER 9, 9A, 10 AND 10A OLD LYDD ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHOPS WITH FLATS AT FIRST FLOOR. ERECTION OF 6 HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED ROAD AND LANDSCAPINGMr and Mrs Jackson



SITE The site lies on the north side of Old Lydd Road within Camber village. At present the site is occupied by four shops with three flats above.The site is flanked by 8 Old Lydd Road to the west and the Green Owl Public House to the east; to the rear is the garden of a bungalow, Park View at a higher level. Opposite the site are the Camber dunes. For the most part the land is flat but rises to the rear towards the adjacent garden area of Park View.

HISTORYThe site has a long history relating to its commercial use but no specific applications relevant to the current proposal.

PROPOSAL This is a full application to redevelop the whole site providing six contemporary style houses.The houses are three storeys and comprise two detached units and two pairs of semi detached houses. They are arranged with three houses at the rear of the site partly cut into the bank and three houses to the front of the site close to the road frontage. Each house has a limited private garden area. A small access road leads to the centre of the site serving all the properties. All properties have dedicated parking and integral garages.

52


The buildings have a contemporary “seaside” appearance with render and weather boarded elevations under a reconstituted slate roof.The submitted Design and Access Statement and an explanatory letter from the applicant are submitted in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- No objections in principle subject to highway conditions.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Southern Water:- No objections.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objections.Director of Services - Amenities:- To be reported.Director of Services - Housing:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The issues arising from this application are: The loss of shop facilities having regard to Policy EM15 of the Local Plan The design, density and form of the development having regard to Policy GD1 of

the Local Plan Any flood issues arising having regard to Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Local

Plan and PPS25 The requirement for affordable housing

Loss of shop facilities:The applicant and his family have lived and traded from the site since 1968, and the shops have been operated for a variety of seaside related uses since then. The uses have included a gift shop, ice cream shop, café, fish and chip shop, for ear piercing and engraving and for printed t-shirts. Changing holiday and trade patterns and a downturn in seasonal trade have meant that it has been increasingly hard to maintain viable businesses here.The Local Plan acknowledges that in the villages it is important to encourage the provision and retention of shops and services which meet day-to-day needs. It recognises that the continuing decline in the number of village shops is a particular concern and impacts most on less mobile residents. While the retention of village shops is essentially market driven, planning policies may resist the change of use of important shops and services unless a continued retail use is clearly unviable.Policy EM15 then includes the following: “The loss of shop premises providing a vital service to a local community (such as a general store) to another use will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the existing business is no longer viable.”I do not consider that this concern or policy is directly relevant to the particular uses that have historically been on this site. As very much a tourist site, the issue is market driven and there are many other shops in Camber. The redevelopment of the site would not be significant in terms of the loss of retail space, any more than the loss of one of the public houses in the village was significant when the nearby Royal William PH was recently redeveloped for housing.

Design, form and density of the development:The application has been the subject of some pre-application consultation. The site is not especially large, but development in the area is very mixed. Six houses would equate to about 45.5 dwellings per hectare which would not be dissimilar to areas of the

53

established housing estate to the north in Denham Way or to the recent housing scheme on the Royal William Public House site.However, it is not so much the theoretical density which is the issue but the relationship of the scheme to its surroundings and how the houses themselves work.To the west is the applicant’s own house which sits back from the road frontage, in line with most of the other properties westwards and the application site buildings themselves which will be demolished. The public house to the east, however, sits on the road frontage.The scheme brings the three front units forward to relate to the public house. There is little impact on the public house from plots 2 and 3 as the main windows of the pub itself are away from the application site.Plot 1 is likely to have an appreciable impact on the applicant’s own house (8 Old Lydd Road) being higher and in sight of a number of its south and east facing front windows, but moving Plot 1 forward retains some measure of light through the centre of the development site.To the rear it is again the applicant’s own property (8 Old Lydd Road) which is most affected by Plot 6 which is somewhat bulky above the adjoining rear yard (although this area is mainly used for parking and garaging) and in relation to the rear elevation of 8 Old Lydd Road. In addition the new house includes side balconies facing the adjoining property.To the rear is a bungalow in Tonbridge Way. The bungalow itself is below the application properties but it has a higher level garden. The small rear gardens of the three new houses will abut the high rear garden and the houses will appear as two storeys close to the neighbouring garden. Direct overlooking has however been largely designed-out with high level windows or obscured glazing.In the wider streetscape this section of Old Lydd Road is characterised by conventional single and two storey properties. The scheme would introduce a higher development than anything nearby and, both to the front of the site and to the rear where the three storey houses would be dominant. On the other hand there is no common height around and the new relationships might be considered no different to the current situations in the area where bungalows sit next to houses. The area is already mixed in character but, nevertheless, the greater height of this scheme should not be underestimated and will need to be appreciated at the site visit.In addition, the scheme includes a number of balconies and while it is the applicant’s own property next door which is most affected consideration needs to be given to resulting overlooking.

Flooding issues:Unlike most of Camber village the site with others along Old Lydd Road, falls outside Flood Zones 2 or 3. Nevertheless the application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and the application has been referred to the Environment Agency. The houses have been designed on three floors with only garaging and storage on the ground floor. The minimum ground floor level is 5.15 metres ODN while the minimum floor level is 7.7m ODN. This compares with the predicted 1 in 200 year tide level in 2110 given by the applicants as 6.25m ODN at Rye. The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment considers that this will provide safe accommodation.

Affordable Housing:As a village site Policy HG1 of the Local Plan requires affordable housing in new development schemes of 5 or more dwellings. Although there are already three flats on the site, and therefore the net gain is only three units, the Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing makes it clear that the policy applies on the gross

54

number of dwellings (paragraph 6.2). The caveat in the policy is that provision below 40% will only be accepted where the applicant fully and financially demonstrates that 40% provision will make the development of the whole site uneconomic based on the current housing market and all the costs of the development. The applicant is making this case and has provided financial information assessing the viability of the scheme with four private and two ‘social units’.The viability argument is still being assessed.

Conclusion:This is a high density scheme involving a more intensive use of the site than currently exists. Four commercial units and three flats will be replaced by six residential units in a more spacious arrangement and using higher buildings.I am relatively comfortable about the scheme in broad townscape terms as the character of Camber in general, and Old Lydd Road in particular, is evolving and higher development is now more common.There are two adjoining residential properties most directly affected, one being the applicant’s own house. Members will be able to appreciate the effect of the scheme on these properties at the site visit.However, although the form of the scheme is considered as an acceptable way forward for this site, it cannot be accepted until the financial viability exercise is completed and on this basis the decision should be deferred. I also have some reservations about the direct impact of the extensive balconies in terms of overlooking within and outward from the new houses. This matter needs further consideration. If however the scheme is considered unacceptable for other reasons a refusal would be appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO VIABILITY ISSUES IN RESPECT OF THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DETAILED DESIGN OF BALCONIES)


RR/2008/1492/P ICKLESHAM WEATHERCOCK HOUSE, WINDMILL LANEREPLACEMENT DWELLING AND DETACHED CARPORT.Ms V Greenwood


SITE The application site lies to the south side of Windmill Lane and comprises a detached two storey dwelling. The site lies outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan and is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. To the west the site is bound by ancient woodland, to the north and east orchards and open farmland to the south. The only immediate neighbouring property, ‘South Lawns’, lies to the north west.

HISTORY (Relevant) A/55/266 Outline: Permission to erect a dwelling house – Approved.A/59/7 Approval of details for dwelling with garage – Approved

Conditional.

PROPOSAL The proposal involves demolishing the existing two storey dwelling and erecting a new four bedroom ‘Huf Haus’ dwelling and detached carport. The house has

55


a larger footprint than that existing and will be located further back into the plot. It is of a contemporary design incorporating pitched roofs and balconies to the front and rear.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – “The Committee were concerned about the visual impact on the area. The proposed build is out of keeping with other houses in the lane. A site visit by RDC requested.”Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consent.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following: Site can be seen from the road and public footpath. Next to our woodland, nature reserve and farmland. Not in keeping with the surrounding area. Lane is single track; construction traffic would cause considerable disruption.1 letter of support concerned with the following: Only two dwellings in the entire length of Windmill Lane. Existing house is nothing more than an unattractive tall box. Existing house completely obliterates the beautiful view to all who walk down

Windmill Lane. The new dwelling will unveil the beauty of the countryside beyond for all to

see and enjoy. Huf Haus is eco-friendly, energy saving and green and will blend into the

landscape. The construction of these houses takes a matter of a few weeks and the

disruption, which will only affect us, will be minimal.

SUMMARY The site is an established residential property set outside any town or village development boundary. The proposal should therefore be judged against Policies GD1 in terms of general development consideration and HG10(i), which states:“Proposals for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless it:(i) is for the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis, subject to

meeting the criteria at Policy GD1, the replacement dwelling being within the same curtilage and of a comparable size; exceptionally a somewhat larger dwelling may be acceptable where it would be more in keeping with the character of the locality in terms of its siting, design and materials;”

Design and sizeThe proposed house is significantly different from the two storey house to be removed in both style and size. The existing house is very plain and has little to commend it in design terms: including the outbuildings (which are also to be removed) it has a footprint of 184.8sqm. While the proposed house, including carport, has a footprint of 226.4sqm, the new dwelling has lower eaves heights, a lower ridge height and appears less visually intrusive. The replacement dwelling policy does allow a larger dwelling when this would be more in character with the locality. The Weathercock House site stands alone and does not relate to or is not read in conjunction with other properties in the vicinity; this may be seen as an advantage in considering this larger contemporary building on this site.

Siting of building and impact on High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyThe proposal is to re-site the property further into the site behind the existing house. I do not consider that this site is set so far into the plot that it no longer relates to the highway or will cause visual harm to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty over the siting of the existing dwelling.

56

While the replacement dwelling has a larger total footprint that that existing, it is significantly different in design. The design concept of the new dwelling and in particular the pitched roof construction ensures that the first floor area is contained within the roof; this means that the proposed building has lower eaves heights and a lower ridge level.

ConclusionThis proposal is for a larger dwelling than the existing house; however, I have no doubt that the site in itself can accommodate a larger replacement house. The issue is whether a building of this design and scale is acceptable in relation the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Policy HG10(i). I support the design concept and consider that it makes a positive architectural contribution to the locality, and while it has a larger footprint and has a revised siting I do not consider that its impact upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be any greater than that of the existing two storey property. I note the concern raised with regard to disruption during the construction period, however, this is not a material planning consideration. For the above reasons I therefore recommend support for this proposal. A legal agreement is required to extinguish rights to rebuild the existing house.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 PLANNING OBLIGATION)1. CD1A (Time limit)2. CD9H (Materials) [Insert a – details] [Insert b – building]3. CD6B (Drainage details)4. CD8M (Restriction on Permitted Development)

Reason: Countryside reason.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension to the house as constructed or any other external alterations or additions, including the insertion of any additional windows, shall take place without the grant of a further permission.Reason: To ensure that the quality and finish of the property is appropriate to the size, scale and design of the property which is being accepted as an example of innovative contemporary architecture having regard to Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. Prior to any development on site the existing property shall be demolished and all materials removed from site. There shall be one dwelling only within the site shown edged in red on the approved plan.Reason: To enable the local planning authority to regulate and control the development of land and prevent the construction of residential dwellings within countryside locations in accordance with Policy HG10(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The larger replacement dwelling has been critically assessed having regard to Polices GD1 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The replacement dwelling, while of a greater size and contemporary style, will make a positive architectural contribution to the locality than the plain two storey dwelling existing at present which contributes nothing to the character of the area. It can therefore be justified in terms of the exception in Policy HG10 and its visual

57

impact upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will not be any greater than that of the existing two storey property.


RR/2008/1494/P ICKLESHAM THE SALTINGS, HARBOUR ROADENGINEERING WORKS TO RAISE OUTER SEA WALL TO ACHIEVE 200 YEAR STANDARD OF PROTECTION (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Rastrum Ltd


SITE The site comprises an area of water frontage on The Saltings next to Rye Wharf.The defined site is an L-shaped area extending about 155 metres north east from Harbour Road to the river frontage and then returning eastwards along the frontage for about 140 metres.

HISTORYRR/79/400/CM Outline: Industry/warehousing/wharfage, marina and waterside

housing – GrantedRR/84/0498 Reserved matters for RR/79/400 – ApprovedRR/2004/0462 Certificate of Lawful Development in respect of RR/79/400 –

Refused – Appeal Dismissed

PROPOSAL The proposal is to retain works previously undertaken to raise the outer sea wall in order to achieve a 200 year standard of protection from river flooding.The previous earth bund was raised with additional earth following consent from the Environment Agency in October 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Approved.Environment Agency:- “...has no objection to the application but would wish to make the following comments.We can confirm that the EA granted land drainage consent for these works on 05/10/2007, consent no.07/R/23, being granted under the Agency’s own land drainage and sea defence bylaws. Under these bylaws however, the scope for protecting and enhancing biodiversity is limited and so we look to the planning process to implement this issue.The proposed development site is located in the Rye Saltings SSSI and directly adjacent to the Dungeness, Rye Bay and Romney Marsh Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for its saltmarsh, itertidal sand and mud communities.The Environment Agency has a duty as a section 28G Authority to work towards achieving positive environmental outcomes across the network of SSSI’s in England and Wales. Although we acknowledge that there are ongoing discussions between the landowners and Natural England relating to the site and that the applicant’s land has been isolated from the sea for 15 years, resulting in the reduction of saltmarsh species, we are confident that the restoration of tidal inundation (through managed realignment) would result in the rapid regeneration of saltmarsh habitat.

58


Allowing the embankment to be improved on the seaward side would make any future proposals to restore this site to a favourable habitat condition considerably more difficult.We would therefore strongly urge Rother DC to take this opportunity to pursue all opportunities for some form of mitigation or compensation on site, such as restoring a section of the site to saltmarsh, by imposing relevant conditions on any permission that may be granted.As a comparative example, an area of land at Rye Harbour Nature Reserve has undergone this process. Seawater has been piped through a culvert and allowed to flood an area of land adjacent to the river. This area was saltmarsh in the 1950’s but isolated when the Rother walls and an access road were built. Since the pipe was put in, saltmarsh communities are developing well in an area that was terrestrial for some time.We would be willing to offer further advice to the LPA and applicant on saltmarsh restoration if required.”Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- The Board would leave all matters arising from this application to the Environment Agency.Natural England:- Object. Reply reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- no adverse comments.Director of Services – Amenities:- No adverse comments.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies to the west of Rye Wharf allocated in the Local Plan as an employment area; land to the west is similarly allocated. The application site is not subject to any specific development allocation. It does however lie within defined Flood Zone 3 and is covered by a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which matter is considered further below.There are two principle issues arising: - Visual impact- Nature conservation and the status of the Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Visual impact:Historically there has for many years been an earth embankment fronting the river westwards from Rye Wharf and returning to the Harbour Road. The increase height and width has made no appreciable change to the character and appearance of the area. After several months in place the earth has now covered naturally with vegetation.

Nature conservation and the SSSI:Determination of this application hinges to a significant extent on the status of the SSSI. Natural England advise that the application site remains in the Rye Harbour SSSI and that it is also directly adjacent to the Dungeness, Rye Bay and Romney Marsh SSSI.Natural England consider that the Rother Estuary is the only significant area of saltmarsh between the Adur Estuary in West Sussex and Pegwell Bay in Kent. It represents saltmarsh habitat, currently with 48 ha of saltmarsh and the ‘saltings’ site representing about 10% of the designated area.

Conclusion:As the Environment Agency have already provided 1 in 200 year protection on an alignment further inland closer to Harbour Road there is no apparent functional need for the works undertaken. Additional flood protection on this alignment could only be considered relevant if the area to be defended was subject to a specific development

59

plan allocation or an extant planning permission: neither case pertains. The objection from Natural England is a material consideration.The Environment Agency suggest that the Council takes this opportunity to pursue all opportunities for some form of mitigation or compensation such as restoring a section of the site to saltmarsh. Natural England themselves recommend refusal on the grounds that permission would prejudice and reduce the likelihood of any future partial (my emphasis) or full restoration of the SSSI toward a ‘favourable’ condition. In the circumstances my view is that the matter be deferred for further discussion with all the parties involved to determine a way forward.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, NATURAL ENGLAND AND THE APPLICANTS)


RR/2008/1425/P ETCHINGHAM GREENBANKS, HIGH STREETDEMOLITION OF PART OF EXISTING DWELLING, ALTERATIONS/EXTENSION TO EXISTING, ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING AND GARAGE WITH PARKING ON SIDE GARDEN. Cedar Grange Equity Limited


This application was deferred at your last meeting for a site inspection and consultation on amended plans.

SITE The site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling set within the Etchingham development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is sloping north to south, highway being on the southern boundary. A modern detached two storey dwelling, known as ‘Mistletoe Cottage’, lies immediately to the west of the site and set slightly behind the dwelling within the application site. A semi-detached dwelling is set immediately to the east of the site currently known as ‘Circles’. The existing dwelling benefits from permission allowing a substantial extension and alterations to be carried out (RR/2007/1474/P). When measured at the centre of the boundary lines the site measures some 75m in deep and some 25m wide and served by a single vehicular access point.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2007/931/P Demolition of existing car port/ workshop and erection of two

detached dwellings with car parking and access together with relocated parking – Withdrawn

RR/2007/1474/P Erection of two storey extension and first floor side extension, insertion of dormer window into the front roof and additions to roof to create an amended roof form including roof window. – Approved

RR/2007/2808/P Demolition of existing car port/ work shop & erection of 2 detached dwellings with car parking & access together with relocated parking. Refused. Appeal undetermined.

60


PROPOSAL This application forms two separate elements. Firstly, to erect a new two storey rear extension and alteration including a front dormer window to the existing dwelling. Secondly, to demolish part of the existing dwelling and erect a new two storey detached dwelling with access drive with associated parking.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority: Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to the imposition of conditions.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Southern Water: Southern Water doe not wish to comment on this application. Planning Notice: Four letters of objection were received on the initial design raising the following concerns: Inaccuracies in the design statement Unsightly eastern elevation Overbearing and dominate the rear garden Loss of sunlight Out of character Severely affect the rear gardens of neighbouring houses Loss of privacy Impact on highwayAny further representations as a result of re-consultation on the amended plan will be reported.

SUMMARY The application was presented to Planning Committee on 19 June 2008 when it was deferred for a site inspection and re-consultation on the amended plans. The amended application still forms two separate elements. Firstly, the plans show a two storey rear extension with a footprint measuring some 6.6m wide by some 4.3m deep. This will be partially visible from the highway, though I consider not detrimental to its visual amenity. To the front elevation a new dormer window is proposed which formed an element of a previously approved application (RR/2007/931/P). The amended plans show the retention of the two storey element on the side of the building and made good where the single storey element has been removed. In determining this part of the application, I have taken into account the previous planning history, the position within the development boundary and the visual appearance of the existing dwelling. Though the rear extension is substantial, I am of the opinion the design and alterations will enhance the visual appearance of the dwelling and street scene alike. Therefore I am of the opinion this first element of the application does not conflict with adopted plan policies and can be conditionally supported.

The second element will result in the demolition of part of the existing dwelling consisting of a single garage, car port and utility room. The plan indicates the land will be sub-divided to create a new plot with a shared vehicular access point. The dwelling is to be set some 14m back from the highway in a slightly elevated position. This is some 4.5m forward of its previous position. An integral garage will be included within the proposed dwelling. The footprint of the proposed building measures some 12.5m deep and some 7m wide and some 8m high. I am of the opinion such a sub-division could be supported due to the plots being similar in size and shape to others in the immediate vicinity. Notwithstanding this, the proposal to position a single dwelling between ‘Circles’ and ‘Greenbanks’ is also considered acceptable. In terms of mass and bulk of this latest scheme I consider to be sympathetically designed to sit comfortably within the street scene as an infill plot. By designing the rear dormer

61

windows to project over the ground floor mono pitched roof, the widow sills measure some 0.7m deep therefore limiting the opportunities of incidental overlooking to the areas immediately behind the neighbouring dwellings, ie: the patio areas. I do not consider the dwelling will be overbearing upon the side elevations of ‘Greenbanks’ or ‘Circles’ as their side elevation windows do not serve habitable rooms.

The design shows both existing trees and those to be removed as well as new hedging along the highway boundary. While some small trees will be removed, I am of the opinion the scheme will require the submission of a landscaping scheme to clarify the planting along the boundaries of the site.

In the new design, I consider sufficient space could be provided to accommodate both turning and parking facilities with landscaping for both the existing and proposed dwellings in place.

I am of the opinion the amendments made to the scheme address many of the objectors’ comments to the initial design. By setting the dwelling several metres forward and amending the design of the elevations, a reduction in associated noise from vehicle movements within the site would result and the issues of overlooking and overbearing would be greatly reduced. Therefore I consider the scheme does not conflict with adopted plan policies and therefore recommend the application be conditionally supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1A. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration

of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. CD9G (Amended). The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension on the existing dwelling hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building. Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. CD9G (Amended). No development of the new detached dwelling hereby permitted shall take place until both samples and their details, of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing building and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. CD8G. The garage hereby approved shall be used for the garaging of private vehicles only and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order. Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to protect the amenities of the local area, in accordance with Policies GD1(i)(iii) and

62

TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan.

5. CD7T. Before occupation of the buildings hereby permitted commences, details of the siting and form of bins and their means of enclosure for the storage and recycling of refuse within the site (internally or externally) and a collection point, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented and thereafter continued, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and PPS1, paragraph 20.

6. CD9N. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the dwelling hereby approved, the stairwell, bathroom and en-suite windows at first floor level within the east and west elevations, as indicated on the approved drawing no. 06.373/SK30 p7, date stamped 23 May 2008, shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality and prevent overlooking of neighbouring property in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. CD6B. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

8. CD4C. No development in respect of the dwelling hereby approved shall commence until details for the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land including details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and a planting plan with schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j), EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. CD4D. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j), EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Note: ND2. This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally submitted plans and subsequently amended plans Ref: 06.373/SK30 p9 date stamped 16 June 2008 and Ref: 06.373/04 E date stamped 18 June 2008

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension and alterations to the existing dwelling and the proposed new detached dwelling are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of

63

adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(d)(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1617/P EWHURST THE WHITE DOG INN, VILLAGE STREETCONSTRUCTION OF STEPPED TERRACES AND SMOKERS GAZEBO AT REAR. FORMATION OF DOORWAY IN PLACE OF EXISTING WINDOWMr and Mrs W Tipples



SITE The White Dog Inn is located at the eastern end of Ewhurst, which is not one of the villages defined in the Rother District Local Plan with a development boundary. The property therefore falls within countryside and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.


PROPOSAL It is proposed to re-grade the sloping pub garden immediately behind the building and create a terrace with three different levels linked by steps and a ramp. The whole terrace area would measure approximately 14m deep x 18m wide and would involve making up existing ground levels and constructing retaining walls with balustrading and planters. The smokers’ gazebo would take the form of a mono pitched open fronted timber shed measuring 2.1m x 4m x 2.5m and be located in the south west corner of the terrace and against the rear wall of the pub and boundary with the adjoining property. The proposal is fully described in the supporting Design and Access Statement, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008. This includes the following comment: “The inn has an existing customer terrace to the front and the intention is that such an amenity use will be less intrusive (following from the upgrading of the back inn garden area with terracing having an attractive outlook) and the consequent improvement that will give, including to the street scene.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support refusal. The development is not in keeping with a rural setting within an AONB; unsympathetic materials.Highway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of consent as vehicle parking spaces, access to the car park and visibility are unaffected.Director of Services – Environment:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- – 1 letter of objection, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX

DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 July 2008. Extracts include: There does not appear to be any demand to improve the existing access for the

less able bodied

64


Applicant should confirm that the intention is to create a new access for the public, from the car park to the garden

Rather ‘suburban’ feel to what is currently a very rural pub Gazebo ... has the appearance of a garden shed with an alarming lack

(absence?) of ventilation Will harm the amenities of the adjoining properties and other residents of the

village ... noise is easily ‘carried’ throughout the village Intention to introduce lighting is of particular concern, given that the pub is

located within the AONB in an area with no on-street lighting and almost no ‘light pollution’ and on prominent ridge visible from the north.

– CPRE – “I wish on behalf of the local branch of the CPRE to object to the above application. The development so far as the extended patio is concerned appears from the almost indecipherable drawings to be more of an urban nature, not out of keeping with a city centre pub, rather than in a tranquil village setting such as Ewhurst. It is not clear what the drainage consequences of such a development would be but that is a detail which needs to be attended to if you were minded to approve.”

– Bodiam Parish Council: “Bodiam Parish Council, as a neighbouring parish, requests that if this application is granted, care be taken to ensure that external lighting will not be visible across the valley, or be detrimental to the night sky. The Council is also concerned about the possibility of noise in this unspoilt valley in an AONB, through the proposed new public use of the north side of The White Dog.”

– 1 letter of support: The garden to the rear of the property is crying out to have a proper terrace with smoking area to remove the smoking area from the front and make the best of the amazing views that this wonderful local business has.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to visual impact upon the landscape and AONB together with the impact upon the residential amenities of the adjoining properties. Relevant Policies include GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.With regard to visual impact, the rear part of the public house is relatively enclosed and not particularly visible from surrounding countryside. There are no public footpaths nearby. However, notwithstanding this and the fact that the terraces are stepped and therefore broken down into smaller elements, they will result in a large area of hard paving in what is currently a softly landscaped part of the garden. This, together with the proposed brick screen wall, retaining walls, balustrades and steps will appear very urban and would, in my opinion, be out of keeping with the pub’s existing rural location in the AONB. The smokers’ gazebo is also a very basic structure and although discreetly located in a corner, would do nothing to conserve and enhance the appearance of the area.With regard to impact upon adjoining residential amenity, the proposal needs to be balanced against the fact that the rear garden is already used by customers and has a number of tables, together with a canvas gazebo on the lower lawn area and from which a certain amount of noise from human activity already occurs. However, the proposed terraces would intensify that use into a more concentrated area which, together with the proposed smokers’ shelter on the boundary with the adjoining property, is likely to have an adverse impact upon adjoining residential amenity.For the above reasons therefore, the proposals are not supported.

65

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of the large area of hard paving, construction of a brick screen wall,

retaining walls, planters, balustrades, steps and the basic design of the smokers’ gazebo, the proposed development would result in an urban appearance which is out of keeping with the soft landscaped character of the existing rear garden of this country public house. For this reason, the development would not conserve or enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would be contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The size and close proximity of the proposed terraces and smokers’ gazebo to neighbouring properties is likely to result in an intensification of noise from customers to the public house using those facilities which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of those properties and contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/893/P SEDLESCOMBE PESTALOZZI VILLAGE, LADYBIRD LANEPLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLDING TOWER AT PESTALOZZI INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE. THE TOWER WILL BE USED TO RUN CLIMBING AND ABSEIL SESSIONS FOR CHILDREN STAYING AT THE STUDENT VILLAGEMr D Drew


This application has been referred to Planning Committee from the Notified D list of applications (24 June 2008). It has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for the 15 July 2008.

SITE The application relates to an undeveloped area of rough grassland within the Pestalozzi International Children’s Village estate. It is some 200 metres to the west of the main complex of buildings.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL The tower would have footprint of 8m x 6m and would be 11m tall. Plans and photographs submitted with the application indicate that it would be constructed of scaffolding poles, partly clad in boarding and incorporating some use of green netting to blend the tower into the landscape. Supporting information indicates that the development is required in connection with one of the PIVT’s commercial operations, which is to offer varied activity, education and environmental programs to a wide range of young people’s organisations. It is also explained that, whilst it is the intention to establish a permanent tower, they have decided to put up a temporary tower on site for the short to medium term. No specific information has been provided to quantify how long this would be.

66


SUMMARY A main issue for consideration is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the AONB. In this respect, I am concerned that the design, materials, and overall external appearance of the structure are not conducive to the need to safeguard the landscape. The adverse appearance of the structure would be compounded by its proposed location, which is quite remote from the existing complex of buildings and on an elevated ridge within undeveloped countryside. The presence of existing trees referred to in the supporting statement has been noted, however, it is considered that these would not effectively screen the development and do not justify granting planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is in the countryside within the designated High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty where national and local planning policies indicate that an aim of planning is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty and consequently, all new development should be strictly controlled. The design, materials and external appearance of the structure, combined with its substantial height and scale, would be out of character and harmful to the special landscape quality of the AONB countryside. The development conflicts with national planning policies in PPS 7 (para. 1 (iv), 21), Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv), (v) of the Local Plan.


RR/2008/1223/P GUESTLING COGHURST HALL CARAVAN PARK, IVYHOUSE LANECHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOOR OF CLUBHOUSE BUILDING (USE CLASS D2) TO CALL CENTRE (USE CLASS B1) (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr M Purdom


SITE The application relates to a small section of the main building at the centre of the large caravan site. The original Coghurst Hall has been extended over time although the application site occupies part of the original building. The remainder of the building is now the main Clubhouse for the site.

HISTORYThe site as a whole has a long and involved history as a caravan park but there are no applications specifically relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL The supporting information outlines the proposal as follows:“As the central head office for Park Holidays UK, Coghurst Hall receives a large amount of incoming telephone calls. The change of use of the first floor of the clubhouse building to a Call Centre (Use Class B1) is therefore an extension of the existing administrative functions of Coghurst Hall and brings together the holiday booking arrangements for all sites within a central facility. This location is considered to meet the core strategy of providing a call centre capable of centralising and co-ordinating all incoming calls.

67


In terms of proposed staffing, the offices have been set up with around 9 full time members of staff including a manager. However, there is sufficient space within the existing allocated floor space for further staff to be employed as the need arises.

The works that have been carried out are concerned solely with the internal layout and do not affect the external appearance of the building. The existing floor area has a footprint measuring approximately 176m2 which has been entirely converted into office use. The remodelled first floor layout provides a main office area for use as a call centre; a manager’s office (for up to 2 managers), kitchen/restroom and a foyer area. The ground floor area will remain as it is, and forms a main entrance providing the access stairway to the first floor level.

Coghurst Hall has some 50 existing car parking spaces set around the hall and office area and are rarely all used during the day. The call centre staff would use these allocated spaces during office hours thereby leaving the spaces free for evening activities. In addition, there is an element of car sharing by staff employed at the call centre, and those that are based locally, cycle or take a bus to the site. The holidaymakers do not utilise the clubhouse parking by virtue that each caravan has its own designated parking space and many of the holidaymakers tend to walk to the clubhouse to take advantage of the evening facilities and activities.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- No objection.Planning Notice:- No representations.

SUMMARY Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan relates to the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside for employment purposes and would encourage suitable uses subject to a range of criteria, including any proposal not detracting from the character of the building or its setting or having any other harmful effect including undue traffic impact. The general development criteria of Policy GD1 also apply.

What is proposed in this instance is the use of part of an existing established building, involving no external alterations, for the specific use as a call-centre relating to the company who own and operate this site. The call centre services both the local caravan site and other sites in the company’s ownership elsewhere in the UK.

The work is a quiet low-key office operation which has no impact outside the building. It occupies a very small part of the main site. Traffic flows from the low staff levels are not appreciable in the context of the total operation and there are no highway objections.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The use of the rooms identified on the approved plan, Drawing CH02, shall be

used only as a call centre associated with the applicant’s ownership and running of the Coghurst Hall Caravan Park and other sites operated by Park Holidays UK.Reason: The proposal is an acceptable ancillary use of the site and in connection with other sites in the applicant’s control, but any independent call centre use unconnected with the site would need to be separately assessed having regard to its specific characteristics in the light of Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

68

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The use of a small part of the main building on the caravan site for purposes connected with the site and other similar sites operated by the applicants would not be detrimental to the character of the site or prejudice the aims of protecting the countryside. The proposal accords with Policies GD1 and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

--oo0oo--

69


rr/2007/3515/p - file · web viewrr/2007/3515/p - rother

Documents